BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Sep 27, 2025; 17(9): 105779
Published online Sep 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.105779
Table 1 Comparative analysis of general data between the two pediatric patient groups
Indicators
AA group (n = 78)
Non-AA group (n = 24)
χ2/t
P value
Gender (male/female)48/3015/90.0070.932
Age (years)7.73 ± 2.457.42 ± 2.840.5220.603
Time from disease onset to hospital admission (hour)10.26 ± 3.889.67 ± 3.460.6670.506
Single-parent family (no/yes)63/1519/51.9610.161
Family medical history (without/with)70/820/40.7260.394
Table 2 Analysis of detection results of abdominal ultrasonography
Abdominal ultrasonography
Gold standard
Total
Positive
Negative
Positive74579
Negative41923
Total7824102
Table 3 Analysis of detection results of computed tomography examination
CT examination
Gold standard
Total
Positive
Negative
Positive70676
Negative81826
Total7824102
Table 4 Analysis of detection results of the combined detection
Combined detection
Gold standard
Total
Positive
Negative
Positive77380
Negative12122
Total7824102
Table 5 Diagnostic efficacy of abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography examination, and their combined detection for pediatric acute appendicitis
Inspection method
AUC
95%CI
Specificity (%)
Sensitivity (%)
P value
Abdominal ultrasonography0.8700.770-0.97179.1794.87< 0.001
CT examination0.8240.714-0.93375.0089.74< 0.001
Combined detection0.9310.852-1.01187.5098.72< 0.001
Table 6 Analysis of relevant parameters of abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and their combined modalities (%)
Inspection method
Positive predictive value
Negative predictive value
Accuracy
Positive detection rate
Misdiagnosis rate
Abdominal ultrasonography93.6782.6191.1872.5520.83
CT examination92.1169.2386.2768.6325.00
Combined detection96.2595.4596.0875.4912.50