Search...
⌘K

Alvarado Score for Acute Appendicitis
Alvarado Score for Acute Appendicitis
Supports diagnosis of appendicitis based on symptoms and exam findings

Alvarado Score for Acute Appendicitis
Alvarado Score for Acute Appendicitis
Supports diagnosis of appendicitis based on symptoms and exam findings
Instructions
Assess clinical symptoms, signs, and basic lab findings. Assign points according to the scoring checklist. Add the total to estimate the likelihood of acute appendicitis and use the interpretation table to guide next steps in management.
Overview
When to use
Why use
Evidences
Interpretation
Score | Interpretation |
1–4 | Unlikely appendicitis; consider discharge or observation |
5–6 | Possible appendicitis; further evaluation and imaging recommended |
7–10 | Probable appendicitis; surgical consultation advised |
Origin and components: The Alvarado score (MANTRELS) was proposed in 1986 as a 10‑point clinical score for suspected acute appendicitis using symptoms (Migratory pain, Anorexia, Nausea/vomiting), signs (Tenderness in RLQ, Rebound pain, Elevated temperature), and labs (Leukocytosis, Shift to left), with tenderness and leukocytosis weighted 2 points each.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3299622/
Pooled accuracy estimates: Meta‑analytic modeling reported summary sensitivity 0.72 and specificity 0.77 for Alvarado across studies, with substantial heterogeneity; by comparison, RIPASA showed higher sensitivity (0.95) but lower specificity (0.71), highlighting trade‑offs among tools.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9524677/
Clinical thresholds and actions: Classical cutoffs categorize 1–4 as low risk (consider discharge/alternatives), 5–6 as equivocal (observe and obtain imaging), and 7–10 as high probability (surgical evaluation); using a structured score can lower negative appendectomy rates when combined with imaging pathways and clinical judgment.
https://jsurgmed.com/article/download/342221/5130
Overview
When to use
Why use
Evidences
The Alvarado Score is a clinical decision-making tool designed to evaluate the probability of acute appendicitis in patients presenting with abdominal pain. Developed in 1986 by Dr. Alfredo Alvarado, the score integrates common symptoms, physical examination findings, and simple laboratory tests into a 10-point system. Its purpose is to improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce unnecessary surgeries, and guide decisions regarding imaging or observation.
The components of the score include migratory right iliac fossa pain, anorexia, nausea or vomiting, tenderness in the right lower quadrant, rebound tenderness, elevated temperature, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia. Each parameter is weighted, with certain clinical findings like tenderness in the right iliac fossa carrying higher point values.
A total score of 7 or more is generally considered strongly suggestive of acute appendicitis and supports surgical referral, while lower scores may warrant observation or additional imaging such as ultrasound or CT scan. Scores between 5 and 6 fall into a diagnostic “gray zone,” often requiring further evaluation to avoid both negative appendectomies and missed diagnoses.
Overview
When to use
Why use
Evidences
Interpretation
Score | Interpretation |
1–4 | Unlikely appendicitis; consider discharge or observation |
5–6 | Possible appendicitis; further evaluation and imaging recommended |
7–10 | Probable appendicitis; surgical consultation advised |
Origin and components: The Alvarado score (MANTRELS) was proposed in 1986 as a 10‑point clinical score for suspected acute appendicitis using symptoms (Migratory pain, Anorexia, Nausea/vomiting), signs (Tenderness in RLQ, Rebound pain, Elevated temperature), and labs (Leukocytosis, Shift to left), with tenderness and leukocytosis weighted 2 points each.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3299622/
Pooled accuracy estimates: Meta‑analytic modeling reported summary sensitivity 0.72 and specificity 0.77 for Alvarado across studies, with substantial heterogeneity; by comparison, RIPASA showed higher sensitivity (0.95) but lower specificity (0.71), highlighting trade‑offs among tools.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9524677/
Clinical thresholds and actions: Classical cutoffs categorize 1–4 as low risk (consider discharge/alternatives), 5–6 as equivocal (observe and obtain imaging), and 7–10 as high probability (surgical evaluation); using a structured score can lower negative appendectomy rates when combined with imaging pathways and clinical judgment.
https://jsurgmed.com/article/download/342221/5130
Frequently Asked Questions
Features and Services FAQs
Discover the full range of features and services we offer and how to use them.
Ready to Transform Your Practice?
Join thousands of clinicians saving hours daily with AI-powered documentation.
14-day free trial • No setup fees
Ready to Transform Your Practice?
Join thousands of clinicians saving hours daily with AI-powered documentation.
14-day free trial • No setup fees
Ready to Transform Your Practice?
Join thousands of clinicians saving hours daily with AI-powered documentation.
14-day free trial • No setup fees
DocScrib
AI-powered medical documentation platform revolutionizing clinical workflows through intelligent patient management and secure documentation.
DocScrib
AI-powered medical documentation platform revolutionizing clinical workflows through intelligent patient management and secure documentation.
DocScrib
AI-powered medical documentation platform revolutionizing clinical workflows through intelligent patient management and secure documentation.