Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

Compared with patients who wait 10:59 minutes or less for ALS response, Priority 1 patients who wait longer than 10:59 minutes could experience between a 6% increase and a 4% decrease in mortality, and do not have an increase in critical procedures performed in the field. Our data are most consistent with the inference that neither the mortality nor the frequency of critical procedural interventions varies substantially based on this prespecified ALS RT.

Introduction The faecal immunochemical test detects blood in the faeces, reporting faecal haemoglobin quantitatively in micrograms of haemoglobin per gram of faeces. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of using the faecal immunochemical test as a rule-out test in symptomatic patients at low and high risk of colorectal cancer. Material and methods Between November 2016 and October 2017, consecutive symptomatic patients within a multicultural part of London were recruited to perform a faecal immunochemical test prior to colonoscopy. Analysis was performed on the HM-JACKarc analyser. Results Faecal immunochemical test samples were returned by 298 patients who underwent colonoscopy. There was no significant variation in faecal haemoglobin levels by age, sex, ethnicity or deprivation. The overall detection rate for colorectal cancer was 100% at 2 µg/g and 92% at 10 µg/g. If a faecal haemoglobin threshold for investigation of 2 µg/g (ie detectable) or 10 µg/g had been employed, the number of colonoscopies would have been reduced by 70% and 84%, respectively, in all symptomatic patients. For low-risk patients, the sensitivity of the faecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer at both thresholds of 2 µg/g or 10 µg/g remained 100%, with the number of colonoscopies reduced by 80% and 91%, respectively. Conclusion This study shows that the faecal immunochemical test is a promising technology that detected colorectal cancer in all high- or low-risk symptomatic patients in our cohort at a threshold of detectable faecal haemoglobin. Data from adequately powered cohort studies will elucidate the true diagnostic accuracy of the test and the rate and patterns of undetected colorectal cancer.

No abstract

Aim:The aim of this work was to investigate whether the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) could safely rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with rectal bleeding (RB).Method: This was a multicentre, double-blinded diagnostic accuracy study in 50 National Health Service hospitals. Patients referred from primary care with suspected CRC on an urgent 2-week-wait pathway were asked to perform a FIT prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was the sensitivity of the FIT for CRC in patients with RB versus nonrectal bleeding symptoms (NRB). The secondary outcome measures included the diagnostic accuracy of the FIT for CRC and other serious bowel disease.Results: Of 9822 patients included in the study, 3143 (32.0%) were referred with RB.CRC was present in 4.7% of patients with RB versus 2.7% of patients with NRB (p < 0.05).Faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) was detectable (>2 µg/g) in 44.1% of patients with RB and 33.9% with NRB (p < 0.05). In RB patients, CRC was present in 10.4% when f-Hb was >2 µg/g compared with 0.1% when f-Hb was not detected. Flexible sigmoidoscopy in this group would further reduce the risk of CRC to 0.03%. The sensitivity of the FIT for CRC in RB versus NRB groups was 98.6% (95% CI 95.2%-99.8%) vs 95.6% (91.5%-98.1%) for f-Hb >2 µg/g and 96.6% (92.2%-98.9%) vs 86.3 (80.4%-90.9%) for f-Hb >10 µg/g. Conclusion:Faecal haemoglobin is not always detectable in patients with RB; 56% of patients had undetectable f-Hb (<2 µg/g) and CRC was present in 0.1%. The high sensitivity of the FIT can be used to rule out CRC in patients with RB and triage them more appropriately for investigation.