Purpose To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios of US, CT, and MRI as second-line imaging modalities after initial US for assessing acute appendicitis in children and adults. Materials and Methods A literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase to identify articles that used surgery or histopathologic examination alone or in combination with clinical follow-up or chart review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of second-line imaging modalities. The quality of articles was assessed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy tools. Results For studies of children, the number of studies and patients were as follows: US, six studies and 548 patients; CT, nine studies and 1498 patients; MRI, five studies and 287 patients. For studies of adults, the number of studies and patients were as follows: US, three studies and 169 patients; CT, 11 studies and 1027 patients; MRI, six studies and 427 patients. Pooled sensitivities and specificities of second-line US for diagnosis of appendicitis in children were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.8%, 95.5%) and 95.2% (95% CI: 91.8%, 97.3%), respectively; and in adults, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 83.1% (95% CI: 70.3%, 91.1%) and 90.9% (95% CI: 59.3%, 98.6%), respectively. Regarding second-line CT in children, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 96.2% (95% CI: 93.2%, 97.8%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 92.8%, 95.9%); and in adults, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 89.9% (95% CI: 85.4%, 93.2%) and 93.6% (95% CI: 91.2%, 95.3%), respectively. Regarding second-line MRI in children, pooled sensitivities and specificities were 97.4% (95% CI: 85.8%, 100%) and 97.1% (95% CI: 92.1%, 99.0%); and in adults, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 89.9% (95% CI: 84.8%, 93.5%) and 93.6% (95% CI: 90.9%, 95.5%), respectively. Conclusion Second-line US, CT, and MRI have comparable and high accuracy in helping to diagnose appendicitis in children and adults, including pregnant women. All three modalities may be valid as second-line imaging in a clinical imaging pathway for diagnosis and management of appendicitis.

The purpose of this study was to semi-quantitatively assess the evidence on the value of ultrasound (US) for assessment of haemophilic arthropathy (HA) in children and adults based on the following questions: (1) Does early diagnosis of pathological findings, using available US techniques, impact the functional status of the joint? (2) Do current available US techniques have the ability to accurately detect pathological changes in target joints in haemophilic patients? (3) Does treatment (prophylaxis) improve US evidence of haemophilic arthropathy in children and adults? (4) Is there any association between various US scoring systems and other clinical/radiological constructs? Of the 6880 citations identified searching databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science, 20 articles investigating either the diagnostic accuracy of US and/or US scanning protocols and scoring systems for assessment of HA met the inclusion criteria for the study. Of these, 14 articles evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of US were assessed by two independent reviewers for reporting quality using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) tool and for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Using STARD, 1/14 studies (7%) was scored as of high reporting quality and 8/14 (57%), of moderate quality. Assessment with QUADAS-2 reported 2/14 (14%) studies as having high methodological quality and 6/14 (43%) as having moderate quality. There is fair evidence (Grade B) to recommend US as an accurate technique for early diagnosis of HA, to demonstrate that US scores correlate with clinical/US constructs and to prove an association between US findings and functional status of the joint. However, there is insufficient evidence (Grade I) to conclude that US-detectable findings in HA are sensitive to changes in therapy.