Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from World Journal of Emergency Surgery and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Clinical value of total white blood cells and neutrophil counts in patients with suspected appendicitis: retrospective study

Zuhoor K Al-gaithy

Author Affiliations

Department of Surgery, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80215, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia

World Journal of Emergency Surgery 2012, 7:32  doi:10.1186/1749-7922-7-32


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.wjes.org/content/7/1/32


Received:20 July 2012
Accepted:3 September 2012
Published:2 October 2012

© 2012 Al-gaithy; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Introduction

Acute appendicitis (AA) is common surgical problem associated with acute-phase reaction. Blood tests role in decision-making process is unclear. This retrospective study aimed to determine diagnostic value of preoperative evaluation of white blood cells (WBCs) and neutrophils and its value in predicting AA severity.

Methods

Medical records of 456 patients who underwent appendectomy during 4-years period were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were subdivided according to histological finding into: normal appendix (n = 29), uncomplicated inflamed appendix (n = 350), complicated appendicitis (n = 77). Diagnostic performances of WBCs and neutrophils were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

WBCs and neutrophils counts were higher in patients with inflamed and complicated appendix than normal appendix and in complicated than inflamed appendix. In patients, WBCs count 9.400 × 103/mL had sensitivity of 76.81%, specificity of 65.52%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.0%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 16.1%, positive likelihood ratio [LR(+)] of 2.23, negative LR(−) of 0.35. Neutrophil count 7.540 × 103/mL had sensitivity of 70.96%, specificity of 65.52%, PPV of 96.8%, NPV of 13.3%, LR(+) of 2.06, LR(−) of 0.44. Areas under ROC curve were 0.701, 0.680 for elevated WBCs and neutrophils count.

Conclusions

Clinicians should not rely on either elevated WBCs or neutrophils count as appendicitis indicator as clinical data are superior in decision-making appendectomy.

Keywords:
Acute appendicitis; Diagnosis; White blood cells; Histological diagnosis; Neutrophil count; Receiver operating characteristic curves

Introduction

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common abdominal emergencies. Although patients with AA often present with a characteristic symptom complex and physical findings, atypical presentations are common. Missed or delayed diagnosis can lead to increased rates of perforation and morbidity [1]. The clinical diagnosis of AA is difficult, and management errors are frequent, with rates of negative explorations reaching 20% to 30% [2]. Despite the wide use of imaging techniques, appendicitis remains a challenging diagnosis [3].

Patients with suspected appendicitis are mainly managed on the basis of their disease history and physical examination; the value of laboratory examinations is controversial. Some works have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of different inflammatory markers in appendicitis with heterogeneous designs and results including: total white blood cells (WBCs), granulocytes, C-reactive protein, leukocyte elastase activity, D-lactate, phospholipase A2 and interleukine-6 [4-6]. Studies have shown inconsistent information regarding the use of WBCs count and differential in AA diagnosis. Although most studies show an association between elevated WBCs count in appendicitis diagnosis, its significance varies greatly [7-10]. Another question that has been raised is whether a normal WBCs count and differential can adequately rule out a diagnosis of appendicitis. There have been reports of high negative predictive values (NPVs >90%) for normal WBCs count and differential [7,9].

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess diagnostic value of total WBCs and neutrophils counts in patients who underwent appendectomy due to suspicious of AA. Using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, NPV, positive predictive value (PPV), and likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated by correlating the preoperative WBCs and neutrophil counts with histological diagnosis. In addition, this study will attempt to determine cutoff point for WBCs and neutrophils counts with best sensitivity and specificity for determination of acute appendicitis.

Material and methods

Four hundred and fifty six patients (273 male and 183 female) who underwent appendectomy with a clinical diagnosis of AA in Surgery Department at King Abdulaziz Medical Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia were recruited in this retrospective study between January 2003 and January 2007. The diagnosis of AA was established by history, clinical examination, and laboratory tests including WBCs and neutrophil counts. Demographic, symptoms, signs, surgical procedures, and histopathological results of appendix examination were recorded. Patients who underwent incidental appendectomy as part of another procedure, and patients on steroids or immunosuppressive medications excluded from the study. According to the results of histopathological examination of the removed appendix, patients were divided into 3 groups, group (1) normal appendix (no pathological diagnosis) (n = 29); group (2) with uncomplicated inflamed appendicitis (n = 350) and group (3) with complicated appendicitis (n = 77) (perforated and gangrenous). The ethical committee of King Abdelaziz University approved the study.

Laboratory tests were carried on admission to hospital before antibiotics administered. WBCs count and differential were measured by an automated hematology analyzer counter (SE-9000; Sysmex, Kobe, Japan). All the excised appendices were underwent histopathological examination.

Data analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using MedCalc for Windows, version 5.0 (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows, version 12.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The data were expressed as mean +/− stander deviation [SD] (range) or number (%) as appropriate. Statistical analysis was done with one-way analysis of variance to compare data between groups. For comparison of 2 groups unpaired Student ”t test” and Chi square test were used for parametric and non-parametric parameters, respectively. For describing the diagnostic properties of WBCs and neutrophils counts, we used the area under ROC curve (AUC) and likelihood ratio (LR) [11]. AUC of 1.00 indicates perfect discriminating power while area of 0.50 indicates absence of discriminating power. LR (+) is the ratio of the frequency of a finding among the diseased patients (true-positive rate) and among the non-diseased patients (false-positive rate). A true diagnostic test usually has an LR >10, and an exclusion test has a LR < 0.1. All results were reported with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Table 1 showed patients’ demographic characteristics. The number of males were significantly higher than females (273 versus 183, P < 0.0001). Regarding type of operation, 406 patients underwent opened appendectomy, 45 patients had laparoscopic appendectomy and 5 had laparoscopic converted to open with significant difference between them P < 0.0001.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the patients

Table 2 showed the clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients subgroups according to the hisopathological findings. In normal, inflamed and complicated appendix, the type of pain was mainly localized 88,2%, 82.7%, 68.8% than generalized 13.8%, 18.3%, 31.2% with significant difference between groups P < 0.026. In normal, inflamed and complicated appendix, the duration of pain was mainly >12 hours, 75.9%, 88.3%, 98.7% than ≤12 hours, 24.1%, 11.8%, 1.3% with significant difference between patients subgroups P < 0.002. Fever was significantly higher in complicated than normal or inflamed appendix (64.9% versus 24.1% and 47.7%, P < 0.0001). WBCs and neutrophils counts were higher in inflamed (P < 0.019, P < 0.045) and complicated (P < 0.001, P < 0.001) than normal appendix and in complicated than inflamed appendix (P < 0.045, P < 0.004).

Table 2. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of patient subgroups

Cut-off values, at which the greatest sum of sensitivity and specificity was obtained, in WBCs and neutrophils counts were 9.400×103 and 7.540×103, respectively in all patients with appendicitis versus normal appendix; 9.400×103 and 8.080 ×103, respectively in patients with inflamed versus normal appendix and 11.100×103 and 7.540×103, respectively in patients with complicated versus normal appendix. At these cutoff points, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR (+) and LR (−) for WBCs and neutrophils were for normal versus all abnormal appendix for WBCs: 76.81, 65.52%, 97.0%, 16.1%, 2.23%, 0.35%; for neutrophils: 70.96%, 65.52%, 96.8%, 13.3%. 2.06%. 0.44%; for normal versus inflamed appendix for WBCs: 75.43%, 65.52%, 96.4%, 18.1%, 2.19%, 0.38%; for neutrophils: 65.43%, 68.97%, 96.2%. 14.2%, 2.11, 0.50%; for normal versus complicated appendix for WBCs: 76.62%, 72.41%, 88.10%, 53.80%, 2.78%, 0.32%; for neutrophils: 81.82%, 65.52%, 86.30%. 57.60%, 2.37, 0.28% (Table 3; Figures 1, 2 and 3).

Table 3. Performance characteristics estimate of normal versus different groups

thumbnailFigure 1. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) for white blood cells and neutrophil counts in all appendectomy patients. a) ROC for white blood cells in all appendectomy patients. ROC for white blood cell count of all appendectomy patients. Area under the curve (AUC) was 0.701 (standard error, 0.055; 95% CI =0.671-0.755). Ideal white blood cell count cutoff value was 9,400 cells/mm3, this yields sensitivity of 76.8% and specificity of 65.5%. b) ROC for neutrophils count of all appendectomy patients. AUC is 0.680 (standard error, 0.056; 95% CI = 0.635-0.722). Neutrophils count ideal cutoff value was 7.540 ×103 cells/mm3, this yields sensitivity of 71.0% and specificity of 65.5%.

thumbnailFigure 2. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) for white blood cells and neutrophil counts in inflamed appendicitis patients. a) ROC for white blood cells in inflamed appendicitis patients. Area under curve (AUC) is 0.704 (standard error, 0.055; 95% CI =0.655-0.749). White blood cell count ideal cutoff value was 9,400 ×103 cells/mm3; this yields sensitivity of 75.4% and specificity of 65.5%. b) ROC for neutrophils count in inflamed appendicitis patients. AUC was 0.664 (standard error, 0.056; 95% CI = 0.614-0.712). Neutrophils count ideal cutoff value was 8.080 × 103 cells/mm3, this cutoff value yields sensitivity of 65.4% and specificity of 69.0%.

thumbnailFigure 3. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) for white blood cells and neutrophil counts in complicated appendicitis patients. a) ROC curve for white blood cell count in complicated appendicitis patients. Area under curve (AUC) was 0.763 (standard error, 0.058; 95% CI = 0.670-0.840). White blood cell count ideal cutoff value was 11.100 × 103 cells/mm3, this cutoff value yields sensitivity of 75.4% and specificity of 65.5%. b) ROC curve for neutrophils count in complicated appendicitis patients. AUC was 0.749 (standard error, 0.060; 95% CI = 0.656-0.828). Neutrophils count ideal cutoff value was 7.540 × 103 cells/mm3, this cutoff value yields sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 65.5%.

Discussion

Although the incidence of AA appears to have been waning slightly over the past few decades, it remains a frequent cause of acute abdominal pain and urgent operative intervention. The analysis of a patient with possible appendicitis can be divided into 3 parts: history, physical examination, and routine laboratory and radiological tests. The pain was reported in 456 (100%) of our cases which was mostly localized than generalized and mostly more than 12 hours. In this respect, Mughal and Soomro [12] have noted pain in 66.7% of patients while, Soomro [13] reported abdominal pain in 98.27% of appendicitis patients. Pain involves whole abdomen when there is perforation leading to peritonitis [14]. This was also true in this series as in complicated appendicitis; generalized pain was more than in normal or inflamed appendicitis. In our cases, second most common presenting symptom was vomiting 76.8% followed by anorexia72.9%, nausea 55.0%, fever 49.1%, diarrhea 4.8% then dysuea 3.1%. Salari and Binesh [15] reported anorexia in 84.48% of patients in pediatric age group while, Soomro [13] reported anorexia in 86.20% of patients. At operation, we found 29 (6.4%) patients with normal appendix, 350 (76.8%) with inflamed appendix, 77 (16.9%) with complicated appendix. Soomro [13] reported that at operation 31 (53.44%) patients with simple appendicitis and 26 (44.82%) patients with complicated appendicitis. In literature the rate of perforated and gangrenous appendicitis has been quoted as 16-57% [14,16].

Acute appendicitis remains a challenging diagnosis. Almost one-third of patients have atypical clinical features. The wide use of ultra sonography and computer tomography scan has not effectively decreased the rate of perforated appendicitis or number of negative appendectomies in large population studies [3] despite the hopeful results of some case series in tertiary care academic hospitals [1,17]. Some authors have assessed the diagnostic value of inflammatory markers with varied designs and results [7,18-20]. Variety of designs explains the lack of evidence in the two meta-analysis published to date about inflammatory markers diagnostic utility [9,21]. Although, over the last few decades, several inflammation markers have been proposed to increase diagnostic accuracy in AA including phospholipase A2, [4] amyloid A, [22] leukocyte elastase, [23] neutrophil count, [9] several interleukins and cytokines, [24] WBCs and neutrophil counts are certainly the most widely used.

In this study, WBCs and neutrophil counts were significantly higher in patients with inflamed and complicated than normal appendix and in complicated than inflamed appendix. Several reports suggest that an elevated leukocyte count is usually the earliest laboratory test to indicate appendiceal inflammation, and most of the patients with acute appendicitis present with leukocytosis [25] despite several studies that acknowledge the limitations of this test [26,27]. Sack et al. [28].found that WBCs count was clearly elevated in children with phlegmonous and perforated appendicitis. Mughal and Soomro [12] found total leucocytes and neutrophil counts elevated in all their patients. Soomro [13] reported elevation of total leucocytes and neutrophils counts in 53.33% of their patients. Meanwhile, Yokoyama et al. [29] reported that WBCs counts and neutrophil percentage are not useful for surgical indication.

Previous studies assessing the relationship between WBCs count and appendicitis have their findings reported in a variety of ways, including comparing mean values for total WBCs count in patients with and without appendicitis, and variously using P-values, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV [23,30]. These studies can be difficult to interpret, because both PPV and NPV depend on disease prevalence. Moreover, sensitivity and specificity alone do not allow clinicians to directly apply diagnostic tests results to individual patients. Grönroos et al. [4] were the first to report that an increased leukocyte count was a very early marker of appendiceal inflammation in adult patients, according to ROC analysis. Contrary to descriptive and comparing statistical methods, analysis of ROC curves allows the estimation and verification of diagnostic suitability of diagnostic parameters. LR(+) is defined as the true-positive rate over the false-positive rate. It allows the clinician to assess the likelihood that a patient with a given test result (i.e., elevated WBCs count) has that disease. Additionally, LR is independent of disease prevalence. Generally, a clinically useful diagnostic test has an LR >10 or <0.1.

In this study, cut-off values, at which greatest sum of sensitivity and specificity was obtained, in WBCs and neutrophils counts were (9.400×103 and 7.540×103, respectively) in all patients with appendicitis versus normal appendix. At these cutoff points, AUC (95% CI) for WBCs and neutrophils were 0.701 (standard error, 0.055; 95% CI = 0.671-0.755) and 0.680 (standard error, 0.055; 95% CI = 0.635-0.722). WBCs and neutrophils sensitivity were 76.81%, 70.96%, specificity 65.52%, 65.52%, PPV 97.0%, 96.8%, NPV 16.1%, 13.3%, LR(+) 2.23, 2.06 and LR(−) 0.35, 0.44. Meanwhile, when we took only cases with inflamed appendicitis versus normal appendix, cut-off values in WBCs and neutrophils counts were 9.400 ×103 and 8.080 ×103, respectively. At these cutoff points, AUC (95% CI) for WBCs and neutrophils were 0.704 (standard error, 0.055; 95% CI = 0.655-0.749) and 0.664 (standard error, 0.056 95% CI = 0.614-0.712). WBCs and neutrophils sensitivity were 75.43%, 65.43%, specificity 65.52%, 68.97%, PPV 96.4%, 96.2%, NPV 18.1%, 14.2%, LR(+) 2.19, 2.11 and LR(−) 0.38, 0.50. While, when we took only cases with complicated appendicitis versus normal appendix, cut-off values in WBCs and neutrophils counts were 11.100 ×103 and 7.540 ×103, respectively. At these cutoff points, AUC (95% CI) for WBCs and neutrophils were 0.763 (standard error, 0.058; 95% CI = 0.670 - 0.840) and 0.749 (standard error, 0.060; 95% CI = 0.656 - 0.828). WBCs and neutrophils sensitivity were 76.62%, 81.82%, specificity 72.41%, 65.52%, PPV 88.10%, 86.30%, NPV 53.80%, 57.60%, LR(+) 2.78, 2.37 and LR(−) 0.32, 0.28. ROC curve analysis of our data suggests that there is no value of WBCs or neutrophils counts that is sensitive and specific enough to be clinically useful. An ideal test has an AUC of 1, while a perfectly random test has an AUC of 0.5. Generally, a “good” test has an AUC >0.8 and an “excellent” test has an AUC >0.9. In this respect, it had been reported that inflammatory markers such as WBCs is poorly reliable in confirming the presence of AA because of their low specificity in adults and children [2,7,31]. Sensitivity and specificity for WBCs count determined in this study is comparable with various national [32,33] and international [6,33-35] studies in which sensitivity ranges from 80.0–88.7%, while specificity ranges from 61.5-87.0%. So, leukocyte count by itself is not completely preventive against negative appendectomy, a finding consistent with our results.

Other investigators have constructed ROC curves for WBCs count and appendicitis with similar results. Körner et al. [36] found AUC of 0.69 (95% CI = 0.65-0.73), statistically no different from our results. Grönroos et al. [4] found a AUC of 0.730 (standard error = 0.041). Rodriguez- Sanjuan et al. [37] found an AUC of 0.67 (standard error = 0.08) for WBCs count and appendicitis in children. Paajanen et al. [18] found an AUC of 0.76. Andersson et al. [38] found an AUC of 0.80 (standard error = 0.02) for patients admitted to hospital for suspected appendicitis. An elevated total WBCs count might erroneously lead a surgeon to operate when other features of clinical scenario do not warrant or alternatively delay intervention as a result of a normal WBCs count. In support, of Guss and Richards [39] showed an association between delay in operative intervention and higher rate of perforated appendix in patients presenting to emergency with eventual diagnosis of appendicitis and normal WBCs count.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study that it is retrospective so there is biases in inclusion criteria of the patients which included all patients who underwent appendectomy, another prospective study containing all patients with abdominal pain with suspension of appendicitis must be made.

Conclusion

Leukocyte and neutrophils counts should not be used as diagnostic criteria for acute appendicitis because of its low sensitivity and specificity and must depend on clinical data as they are superior in decision-making appendectomy. WBCs and neutrophils counts do not indicate disease severity. WBCs and neutrophils counts in appendicitis evaluation does not enhance clinical decision making. The sensitivity of these tests is insufficient to achieve reliable rule-out.

Abbreviations

AA: Acute appendicitis; AUC: Area under curve; LR: Likelihood ratios; NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value; ROC: Receiver operating characteristic curves; WBCs: White blood cells.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

ZA carried out the design the study, collection and analysis of data, drafting and approved the final manuscript for publication.

References

  1. Cardall T, Glasser J, Guss DA: Clinical value of the total white blood cell count and temperature in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis.

    Acad Emerg Med 2004, 11(10):1021-1027. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  2. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ: Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis.

    ANZ J Surg 2006, 76(1–2):71-74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  3. Flum DR, McClure TD, Morris A, Koepsell T: Misdiagnosis of appendicitis and the use of diagnostic imaging.

    J Am Coll Surg 2005, 201(6):933-939. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  4. Grönroos JM, Forsström JJ, Irjala K, Nevalainen TJ: Phospholipase A2, C-reactive protein, and white blood cell count in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

    Clin Chem 1994, 40(9):1757-1760. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  5. Cağlayan F, Cakmak M, Cağlayan O, Cavuşoglu T: Plasma D-lactate levels in diagnosis of appendicitis.

    J Invest Surg 2003, 16(4):233-237. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  6. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ: Role of leukocyte count, neutrophil percentage, and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the elderly.

    Am Surg 2005, 71(4):344-347. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  7. Grönroos JM, Grönroos P: Leucocyte count and C reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

    Br J Surg 1999, 86(4):501-504. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  8. Ng KC, Lai SW: Clinical analysis of the related factors in acute appendicitis.

    Yale J Biol Med 2002, 75(1):41-45. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  9. Andersson RE: Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis.

    Br J Surg 2004, 91(1):28-37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  10. Kharbanda AB, Taylor GA, Fishman SJ, Bachur RG: A clinical decision rule to identify children at low risk for appendicitis.

    Pediatrics 2005, 116(3):709-716. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  11. Zweig MH, Campbell G: Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine.

    Clin Chem Clin Chem 1993, 39(4):561-577. OpenURL

  12. Mughal SA, Soomro S: Acute appendicitis in children.

    J Surg Pakistan 2007, 12:123-125. OpenURL

  13. Soomro BA: Acute appendicitis in children.

    J Surg Pak (Int) 2008, 13(4):151-154. OpenURL

  14. Lee SL, Ho HS: Acute appendicitis: is there a difference between children and adults?

    Am Surg 2006, 72(5):409-413. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  15. Salari AK, Binesh F: Diagnostic value of anorexia in acute appendicitis.

    Pak J Med Sci 2007, 23:68-70. OpenURL

  16. Kirshan S: Small bowel and appendix. In General surgery – Board review series. Edited by Crabtree TD. London: Lippencott-Williams and Wilkins; 2000:195-196. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  17. Balthazar EJ, Rofsky NM, Zucker R: Appendicitis: the impact of computed tomography imaging on negative appendectomy and perforation rates.

    Am J Gastroenterol 1998, 93(5):768-771. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  18. Paajanen H, Mansikka A, Laato M, Ristamäki R, Pulkki K, Kostiainen S: Novel serum inflammatory markers in acute appendicitis.

    Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2002, 62(8):579-584. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  19. Kessler N, Cyteval C, Gallix B, Lesnik A, Blayac PM, Pujol J, Bruel JM, Taourel P: Appendicitis: evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of US, Doppler US, and laboratory findings.

    Radiology 2004, 230(2):472-478. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  20. Wu HP, Huang CY, Chang YJ, Chou CC, Lin CY: Use of changes over time in serum inflammatory parameters in patients with equivocal appendicitis.

    Surgery 2006, 139(6):789-796. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  21. Hallan S, Asberg A: The accuracy of C-reactive protein in diagnosing acute appendicitis - a meta-analysis.

    Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1997, 57(5):373-380. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  22. Lycopoulou L, Mamoulakis C, Hantzi E, Demetriadis D, Antypas S, Giannaki M, Bakoula C, Chrousos G, Papassotiriou I: Serum amyloid A protein levels as a possible aid in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children.

    Clin Chem Lab Med 2005, 43(1):49-53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  23. Eriksson S, Granström L, Olander B, Pira U: Leukocyte elastase as a marker in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

    Eur J Surg 1995, 161(12):901-905. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  24. Dalal I, Somekh E, Bilker-Reich A, Boaz M, Gorenstein A, Serour F: Serum and peritoneal inflammatory mediators in children with suspected acute appendicitis.

    Arch Surg 2005, 140(2):169-173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  25. Hallan S, Asberg A, Edna TH: Additional value of biochemical tests in suspected acute appendicitis.

    Eur J Surg 1997, 163(7):533-538. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  26. Sarosi GA, Turnage RH: Appendicitis. In Sleisenger and Fortran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease. 7th edition. Edited by Feldman M, Friedman LS, Sleisenger MH. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2002.

    2092

    OpenURL

  27. Wolfe JM, Henneman PL: Acute appendicitis. In Rosen’s Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice. 3rd edition. Edited by Marx JA, Hockberger RS, Walls RM. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002:1293-1294. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  28. Sack U, Biereder B, Elouahidi T, Bauer K, Keller T, Tröbs RB: Diagnostic value of blood inflammatory markers for detection of acute appendicitis in children.

    BMC Surg 2006, 28:6-15. OpenURL

  29. Yokoyama S, Takifuji K, Hotta T, Matsuda K, Nasu T, Nakamori M, Hirabayashi N, Kinoshita H, Yamaue H: C-Reactive protein is an independent surgical indication marker for appendicitis: a retrospective study.

    World J Emerg Surg 2009, 4:36. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  30. Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS: Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis.

    Arch Surg 2001, 136(5):556-562. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  31. Gronroos JM: Do normal leucocyte count and C-reactive protein value exclude acute appendicitis in children?

    Acta Paediatr 2001, 90(6):649-651. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  32. Khan MN, Davie E, Irshad K: The role of white cell count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

    J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2004, 16(3):17-19. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

  33. Gulzar S, Umar S, Dar GM, Rasheed R: Acute appendicitisrole of clinical examination in making a confident diagnosis.

    Pak J Med Sci 2005, 21(2):125-132. OpenURL

  34. Bener A, Suwaid MH, Ghazawi IE: Diagnosis of appendicitis.

    Can J Rural Med 2002, 7:26-29. OpenURL

  35. de Carvalho BR, Diogo-Filho A, Fernandes C, Barra CB: Leukocyte count, C-reactive protein, alpha-1 acid glycoprotein and erythrocytes sedimentation rate in acute appendicitis.

    Arq Gastroenterol 2003, 40(1):25-30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  36. Körner H, Söreide JA, Söndenaa K: Diagnostic accuracy of inflammatory markers in patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis: a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

    Eur J Surg 1999, 165(7):679-685. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  37. Rodríguez-Sanjuán JC, Martín-Parra JI, Seco I, García-Castrillo L, Naranjo A: C-reactive protein and leukocyte count in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children.

    Dis Colon Rectum 1999, 42(10):1325-1329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  38. Andersson RE, Hugander AP, Ghazi SH, Ravn H, Offenbartl SK, Nyström PO, Olaison GP: Diagnostic value of disease history, clinical parameters, and inflammatory parameters of appendicitis.

    World J Surg 1999, 23(2):133-140. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  39. Guss DA, Richards C: Normal total WBC and operative delay in appendicitis.

    Cal J Emerg Med 2000, 1(2):7-8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL