Acknowledgement
The data in our study were obtained from the database of a randomized controlled trial by the LOCAT Group.
References
- Terasawa T, Blackmore CC, Bent S, Kohlwes RJ. Systematic review: computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:537-546 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-7-200410050-00011
- Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, Epelman M, Beyene J, Schuh S, et al. US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 2006;241:83-94 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411050913
- van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology 2008;249:97-106 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2483071652
- Cuschieri J, Florence M, Flum DR, Jurkovich GJ, Lin P, Steele SR, et al. Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington state surgical care and outcomes assessment program. Ann Surg 2008;248:557-563 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318187aeca
- Park JH; LOCAT Group. Diagnostic imaging utilization in cases of acute appendicitis: multi-center experience. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29:1308-1316 https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.9.1308
- Rud B, Vejborg TS, Rappeport ED, Reitsma JB, Wille-Jorgensen P. Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;2019:CD009977
- Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1596-1605 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1110734
- LOCAT Group. Low-dose CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents and young adults (LOCAT): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:793-804 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30247-9
- Ganguli S, Raptopoulos V, Komlos F, Siewert B, Kruskal JB. Right lower quadrant pain: value of the nonvisualized appendix in patients at multidetector CT. Radiology 2006;241:175-180 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411050191
- Nikolaidis P, Hwang CM, Miller FH, Papanicolaou N. The nonvisualized appendix: incidence of acute appendicitis when secondary inflammatory changes are absent. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:889-892 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.4.1830889
- Garcia K, Hernanz-Schulman M, Bennett DL, Morrow SE, Yu C, Kan JH. Suspected appendicitis in children: diagnostic importance of normal abdominopelvic CT findings with nonvisualized appendix. Radiology 2009;250:531-537 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2502080624
- Kim HJ, Lee KH, Kim MJ, Park SB, Ko Y; LOCAT Group. Using 2-mSv appendiceal CT in usual practice for adolescents and young adults: willingness survey of 579 radiologists, emergency physicians, and surgeons from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:68-76 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0010
- LOCAT. What is LOCAT? Low-dOse CT of Appendicitis Trial. LOCAT.org. Web site. www.locat.org. Accessed June 17, 2021
- Ahn S; LOCAT group. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:28
- Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2016;375:454-463 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1510059
- Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P; CONSORT Group. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295-309 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008
- Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008;337:a2390
- Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015;277:826-832 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151516
- Park SB, Kim MJ, Ko Y, Sim JY, Kim HJ, Lee KH; LOCAT Group. Structured reporting versus free-text reporting for appendiceal computed tomography in adolescents and young adults: preference survey of 594 referring physicians, surgeons, and radiologists from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:246-255 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0109
- Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000;215:337-348 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ma24337
- Pinto Leite N, Pereira JM, Cunha R, Pinto P, Sirlin C. CT evaluation of appendicitis and its complications: imaging techniques and key diagnostic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:406-417 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.2.01850406
- Yang HK, Ko Y, Lee MH, Woo H, Ahn S, Kim B, et al. Initial performance of radiologists and radiology residents in interpreting low-dose (2-mSv) appendiceal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W594-W611 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14513
- NIH. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. Ctep.cancer.gov Web site. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_40. Published June 14, 2010. Accessed June 14, 2021
- Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG. Nonneoplastic diseases of the appendix. In: Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG, eds. Gastrointestinal pathology: an atalas and text, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008:504-505
- Kim HJ, Kim MS, Park JH, Ahn S, Ko Y, Song SY, et al. Meaningful standard of reference for appendiceal perforation: pathology, surgery, or both? Ann Surg Treat Res 2017;93:88-97 https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2017.93.2.88
- Scott JW, Loehrer AP. The utility of perforated appendix rate as a proxy for timely access to care. JAMA Surg 2020;155:1081-1082 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.2504
- Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg 1992;58:264-269
- Pepe MS, Alonzo TA. Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives. Biostatistics 2001;2:249-260 https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/2.3.249
- Kim HY, Ko Y, Park JH, Lee KH; LOCAT Group. Detection and false-referral rates of 2-mSv CT relative to standard-dose CT for appendiceal perforation: pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:874-884 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.22632
- Mehrotra DV, Chan IS, Berger RL. A cautionary note on exact unconditional inference for a difference between two independent binomial proportions. Biometrics 2003;59:441-450 https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0420.00051
- Joo SM, Lee KH, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim K, Kim KJ, et al. Detection of the normal appendix with low-dose unenhanced CT: use of the sliding slab averaging technique. Radiology 2009;251:780-787 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2513081617
- Park HR, Park SB, Lee ES, Park HJ, Lee JB, Kim YS. Unenhanced computed tomography for normal appendix detection: comparison of low-dose with statistical iterative reconstruction and regular-dose with filtered back projection. Clin Imaging 2017;43:117-121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.02.010
- Sim JY, Kim HJ, Yeon JW, Suh BS, Kim KH, Ha YR, et al. Added value of ultrasound re-evaluation for patients with equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1882-1890 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2769-2