Objective To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain. Design Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection. Setting Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants 1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock. Intervention All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent. Main outcome measures Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain. Results 661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity. Conclusion Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/253/1/31/suppl/DC1.

In head-to-head comparison studies of diagnostic imaging, CT had a better test performance than did graded compression US in diagnosing appendicitis. Ignoring the relationship between prevalence (pretest probability) and diagnostic value may lead to an inaccurate estimation of diagnostic performance.

ObjectivesHead-to-head comparison of ultrasound and CT accuracy in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain.Materials and methodsConsecutive patients with abdominal pain for >2 h and <5 days referred for imaging underwent both US and CT by different radiologists/radiological residents. An expert panel assigned a final diagnosis. Ultrasound and CT sensitivity and predictive values were calculated for frequent final diagnoses. Effect of patient characteristics and observer experience on ultrasound sensitivity was studied.ResultsFrequent final diagnoses in the 1,021 patients (mean age 47; 55% female) were appendicitis (284; 28%), diverticulitis (118; 12%) and cholecystitis (52; 5%). The sensitivity of CT in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was significantly higher than that of ultrasound: 94% versus 76% (p < 0.01) and 81% versus 61% (p = 0.048), respectively. For cholecystitis, the sensitivity of both was 73% (p = 1.00). Positive predictive values did not differ significantly between ultrasound and CT for these conditions. Ultrasound sensitivity in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was not significantly negatively affected by patient characteristics or reader experience.ConclusionCT misses fewer cases than ultrasound, but both ultrasound and CT can reliably detect common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Ultrasound sensitivity was largely not influenced by patient characteristics and reader experience.

The purpose was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of graded compression ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) in suspected patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of CT and US in diagnosing ACD. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS tool. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random effects model. Six US studies evaluated 630 patients, and eight CT studies evaluated 684 patients. Overall, their quality was moderate. We did not identify meaningful sources of heterogeneity in the study results. Summary sensitivity estimates were 92% (95% CI: 80%-97%) for US versus 94% (95%CI: 87%-97%) for CT (p = 0.65). Summary specificity estimates were 90% (95%CI: 82%-95%) for US versus 99% (95%CI: 90%-100%) for CT (p = 0.07). For the identification of alternative diseases sensitivity ranged between 33% and 78% for US and between 50% and 100% for CT. The currently best available evidence shows no statistically significant difference in accuracy of US and CT in diagnosing ACD. Therefore, both US and CT can be used as initial diagnostic tool until new evidence is brought forward. However, CT is more likely to identify alternative diseases.

In a quarter of patients with suspected diverticulitis, the diagnosis can be made clinically based on a combination of direct tenderness only in the left lower quadrant, the absence of vomiting, and an elevated C-reactive protein. In patients without these features, imaging is required to reach adequate diagnostic accuracy.

The purpose was to evaluate low-dose CT colonography without cathartic cleansing in terms of image quality, polyp visualization and patient acceptance. Sixty-one patients scheduled for colonoscopy started a low-fiber diet, lactulose and amidotrizoic-acid for fecal tagging 2 days prior to the CTscan (standard dose, 5.8-8.2 mSv). The original raw data of 51 patients were modified and reconstructed at simulated 2.3 and 0.7 mSv levels. Two observers evaluated the standard dose scan regarding image quality and polyps. A third evaluated the presence of polyps at all three mSv levels in a blinded prospective way. All observers were blinded to the reference standard: colonoscopy. At three times patients were given questionnaires relating to their experiences and preference. Image quality was sufficient in all patients, but significantly lower in the cecum, sigmoid and rectum. The two observers correctly identified respectively 10/15 (67%) and 9/15 (60%) polyps ≥10 mm, with 5 and 8 false-positive lesions (standard dose scan). Dose reduction down to 0.7 mSv was not associated with significant changes in diagnostic value (polyps ≥10 mm). Eighty percent of patients preferred CT colonography and 13% preferred colonoscopy (P<0.001). CT colonography without cleansing is preferred to colonoscopy and shows sufficient image quality and moderate sensitivity, without impaired diagnostic value at dose-levels as low as 0.7 mSv.

No abstract