RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnostic Performance of Systemic-Immune Inflammation Index for Overall and Complicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and a Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.09.24.24314119
DO 10.1101/2024.09.24.24314119
A1 Montero, Javier Arredondo
A1 Delgado-Miguel, Carlos
A1 Riveros, Blanca Paola Pérez
A1 Fernández-Atuan, Rafael
A1 Rico-Jiménez, María
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/24/2024.09.24.24314119.abstract
AB Background This study aimed to analyze the systemic-immune inflammation index (SII)’s diagnostic performance in diagnosing acute appendicitis (AA) and discriminating between complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) and non-complicated acute appendicitis (NCAA).Methods This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024587430). We included prospective or retrospective original clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of SII in AA. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and OVID. Search terms and keywords were: (appendicitis OR appendectomy) AND (systemic-immune inflammation index OR SII). Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS2 index. A synthesis of the results, standardization of the metrics, four random-effect meta-analyses, and two Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) meta-analyses were performed.Results Thirteen studies with data from 9083 participants, including 5255 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of AA and 3828 controls (CG), were included in this review. The random-effect meta-analysis of SII (AA vs. CG) included ten articles (3733 AA and 3510 controls) and resulted in a significant mean difference [95% CI] of 1072.46 [750.55,1394.37] (p<0.001). The random-effect meta-analysis of SII (CAA vs. NCAA) included nine articles (1116 CAA and 2984 NCAA) and resulted in a significant mean difference [95% CI] of 1294.2 [731.54,1856.86] (p<0.001). Subgroup meta-analysis for studies conducted in pediatric-only populations maintained statistical significance. The DTA meta-analysis (AA vs. CG) yielded a pooled sensitivity and specificity [95% CI] of 81.8 [75.2,86.9] % and 79.9 [68.2,88.1] %. The DTA meta-analysis (NCAA vs. CAA) resulted in a pooled sensitivity and specificity [95% CI] of 72.5 [49.6,87.6] % and 82.5 [65.1,92.2] %.Conclusions SII emerges as a robust tool for diagnosing AA and differentiating between NCAA and CAA. The retrospective nature of most of the included studies and their limited geographical distribution warrant further prospective multicenter studies to validate these findings.Funding NoneRegistration PROSPERO (CRD42024587430).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis review did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors, and none of the authors has external funding to declare.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe data used to carry out this systematic review are available upon request from the authors.