RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnostic performance of urinary 5-Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.08.02.23293546
DO 10.1101/2023.08.02.23293546
A1 Arredondo Montero, Javier
A1 Bueso Asfura, Oscar Emilio
A1 Pérez Riveros, Blanca Paola
A1 Rico Jiménez, María
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/02/2023.08.02.23293546.abstract
AB Background This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of urinary 5-Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid (5-HIAA) in acute appendicitis (AA).Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the main databases of medical bibliography. 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, and a random-effect meta-analysis were performed. Additionally, a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis (DTA) was performed.Results Twelve studies with data from 1467 participants (724 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of AA and 743 controls) were included in this review. The random-effect meta-analysis of urinary 5-HIAA (AA vs controls) included 7 articles (352 AA and 258 controls) and resulted in a significant mean difference [95% CI] of 23.30 [15.82-30.77] μmol/L (p<0.001). The DTA meta-analysis of urinary 5-HIAA included 8 articles and resulted in a pooled sensitivity [95% CI] of 68.6 [44.1-85.9]% and a pooled specificity [95% CI] of 82 [54.7-94.5]%.Conclusions Although the evidence is heterogeneous and limited, urinary 5-HIAA emerges as a potential non-invasive diagnostic tool for AA. Urinary 5-HIAA does not seem to be a useful biomarker to distinguish between NCAA and CAA. Future prospective studies with a large sample size and a rigorous design are necessary to validate these findings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding 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confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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.YesAll the data pertaining to this systematic review is available upon reasonable request through the corresponding author