J Surg Res. 2025 Apr 16;309:88-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2025.03.002. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: 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 noncomplicated acute appendicitis (NCAA).
METHODS: This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024587430). We included prospective and 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 the following: (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 quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). 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 versus CG) included 10 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 versus 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 versus 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 (CAA versus NCAA) resulted in a pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of 72.5% [49.6, 87.6] and 82.5% (65.1, 92.2). The pooled area under the curve (AA versus CG) was 0.88, and the pooled area under the curve (CAA versus NCAA) was 0.85.
CONCLUSIONS: SII emerges as a robust tool for diagnosing AA and differentiating between CAA and NCAA. The high meta-analytical heterogeneity, the retrospective nature of most of the included studies, and their limited geographical distribution warrant further prospective multicenter studies to validate these findings.
PMID:40245460 | DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2025.03.002