MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy

Gary M. Israel, Nagina Malguria, Shirley McCarthy, Josh Copel, Jeffrey Weinreb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

88 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ultrasound (US) and MRI in evaluation of pregnant patients with a clinical suspicion of appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A total of 33 pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis underwent US and MRI. The original imaging reports generated at the time of presentation were used for data analysis. Pathology reports were used for disease confirmation in patients who underwent appendectomy. When surgery was not performed, a medical record review was performed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated for US and MRI in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Results: Five of the 33 patients had pathologically-proven appendicitis. Four of the five patients with appendicitis were correctly diagnosed at MRI while one was interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). At US, one was correctly diagnosed, one was incorrectly diagnosed as normal, and three were interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). In 13 patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at MRI, none of whom had appendicitis. In three patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at US, one of whom had appendicitis. When the appendix was visualized at MRI, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 100% for all parameters. When the appendix was visualized at US, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 50%, 100%, 100%, and 66%, respectively. Conclusion: Based on a relatively small number of true-positives, our data suggests that MRI is very useful for the diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis in pregnant women.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)428-433
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume28
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2008

Fingerprint

Appendicitis
Pregnancy
Sensitivity and Specificity
Appendectomy
Medical Records
Pregnant Women
Pathology

Keywords

  • Appendicitis
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Pregnancy
  • Ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Israel, G. M., Malguria, N., McCarthy, S., Copel, J., & Weinreb, J. (2008). MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 28(2), 428-433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21456

MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. / Israel, Gary M.; Malguria, Nagina; McCarthy, Shirley; Copel, Josh; Weinreb, Jeffrey.

In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 28, No. 2, 08.2008, p. 428-433.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Israel, GM, Malguria, N, McCarthy, S, Copel, J & Weinreb, J 2008, 'MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy', Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 428-433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21456
Israel, Gary M. ; Malguria, Nagina ; McCarthy, Shirley ; Copel, Josh ; Weinreb, Jeffrey. / MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2008 ; Vol. 28, No. 2. pp. 428-433.
@article{67fe815e346c420ea7f6bbe8b5f7d7e7,
title = "MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ultrasound (US) and MRI in evaluation of pregnant patients with a clinical suspicion of appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A total of 33 pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis underwent US and MRI. The original imaging reports generated at the time of presentation were used for data analysis. Pathology reports were used for disease confirmation in patients who underwent appendectomy. When surgery was not performed, a medical record review was performed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated for US and MRI in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Results: Five of the 33 patients had pathologically-proven appendicitis. Four of the five patients with appendicitis were correctly diagnosed at MRI while one was interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). At US, one was correctly diagnosed, one was incorrectly diagnosed as normal, and three were interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). In 13 patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at MRI, none of whom had appendicitis. In three patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at US, one of whom had appendicitis. When the appendix was visualized at MRI, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 100{\%} for all parameters. When the appendix was visualized at US, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 50{\%}, 100{\%}, 100{\%}, and 66{\%}, respectively. Conclusion: Based on a relatively small number of true-positives, our data suggests that MRI is very useful for the diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis in pregnant women.",
keywords = "Appendicitis, Magnetic resonance imaging, Pregnancy, Ultrasound",
author = "Israel, {Gary M.} and Nagina Malguria and Shirley McCarthy and Josh Copel and Jeffrey Weinreb",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1002/jmri.21456",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "428--433",
journal = "Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
issn = "1053-1807",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy

AU - Israel, Gary M.

AU - Malguria, Nagina

AU - McCarthy, Shirley

AU - Copel, Josh

AU - Weinreb, Jeffrey

PY - 2008/8

Y1 - 2008/8

N2 - Purpose: To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ultrasound (US) and MRI in evaluation of pregnant patients with a clinical suspicion of appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A total of 33 pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis underwent US and MRI. The original imaging reports generated at the time of presentation were used for data analysis. Pathology reports were used for disease confirmation in patients who underwent appendectomy. When surgery was not performed, a medical record review was performed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated for US and MRI in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Results: Five of the 33 patients had pathologically-proven appendicitis. Four of the five patients with appendicitis were correctly diagnosed at MRI while one was interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). At US, one was correctly diagnosed, one was incorrectly diagnosed as normal, and three were interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). In 13 patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at MRI, none of whom had appendicitis. In three patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at US, one of whom had appendicitis. When the appendix was visualized at MRI, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 100% for all parameters. When the appendix was visualized at US, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 50%, 100%, 100%, and 66%, respectively. Conclusion: Based on a relatively small number of true-positives, our data suggests that MRI is very useful for the diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis in pregnant women.

AB - Purpose: To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ultrasound (US) and MRI in evaluation of pregnant patients with a clinical suspicion of appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A total of 33 pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis underwent US and MRI. The original imaging reports generated at the time of presentation were used for data analysis. Pathology reports were used for disease confirmation in patients who underwent appendectomy. When surgery was not performed, a medical record review was performed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated for US and MRI in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Results: Five of the 33 patients had pathologically-proven appendicitis. Four of the five patients with appendicitis were correctly diagnosed at MRI while one was interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). At US, one was correctly diagnosed, one was incorrectly diagnosed as normal, and three were interpreted as indeterminate (appendix not seen). In 13 patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at MRI, none of whom had appendicitis. In three patients, a normal appendix was diagnosed at US, one of whom had appendicitis. When the appendix was visualized at MRI, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 100% for all parameters. When the appendix was visualized at US, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 50%, 100%, 100%, and 66%, respectively. Conclusion: Based on a relatively small number of true-positives, our data suggests that MRI is very useful for the diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis in pregnant women.

KW - Appendicitis

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Pregnancy

KW - Ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49049102707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=49049102707&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jmri.21456

DO - 10.1002/jmri.21456

M3 - Article

C2 - 18666160

AN - SCOPUS:49049102707

VL - 28

SP - 428

EP - 433

JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

SN - 1053-1807

IS - 2

ER -