Table 2

Diagnostic performance of ultrasound and CT-scan for different anatomical areas

SensitivitySpecificityP value*PPVNPV
UltrasoundCTUltrasoundCTUltrasoundCTUltrasoundCT
Recto-sigmoid59.3%
(16/27)
33.3%
(9/27)
97.0%
(64/66)
89.4%
(59/66)
0.81588.9%
(16/18)
56.2%
(9/16)
85.3%
(64/75)
76.6%
(59/77)
Pelvic peritoneum74.6%
(44/59)
59.3%
(35/59)
94.1%
(32/34)
91.2%
(31/34)
0.15295.7%
(44/46)
92.1%
(35/38)
68.1%
(32/47)
56.4%
(59/77)
Major omentum82.6%
(38/46)
76.1%
(35/46)
97.9%
(46/47)
93.6%
(44/47)
1.00097.4%
(38/39)
92.1%
(35/38)
85.2%
(46/54)
80.0%
(44/55)
Abdominal peritoneum76.7%
(33/43)
65.1%
(28/43)
94.0%
(47/50)
88.0%
(44/50)
0.82491.7%
(33/36)
82.4%
(28/34)
82.5%
(47/57)
74.6%
(44/59)
Bowel41.7%
(5/12)
58.3%
(7/12)
95.1%
(77/81)
91.4%
(74/81)
0.22755.6%
(5/9)
50.0%
(7/14)
91.7%
(77/84)
93.7%
(74/79)
Root of mesentery25.0%
(1/4)
25.0%
(1/4)
100.0%
(89/89)
92.1%
(82/89)
0.700100%
(1/1)
14.3%
(1/7)
96.7%
(89/92)
95.3%
(82/86)
Mesogastrium50.0%
(6/12)
50.0%
(6/12)
93.8%
(76/81)
92.6%
(75/81)
1.00054.5%
(5/11)
50.0%
(6/12)
92.7%
(76/82)
92.6%
(75/81)
Hepatic hilum30.0%
(3/10)
20.0%
(2/10)
100.0%
(83/83)
100.0%
(83/83)
1.000100%
(3/3)
100%
(2/2)
92.2%
(83/90)
91.2%
(83/91)
Liver parenchyma100.0%
(2/2)
100.0%
(2/2)
100.0%
(91/91)
100.0%
(91/91)
1.000100%
(2/2)
100%
(2/2)
100%
(91/91)
100%
(91/91)
Spleen parenchyma40.0%
(2/5)
40.0%
(2/5)
100.0%
(88/88)
100.0%
(88/88)
1.000100%
(2/2)
100%
(2/2)
96.7%
(88/91)
96.7%
(88/91)
Pelvic lymph nodes46.2%
(6/13)
38.5%
(5/13)
98.8%
(79/80)
95.0%
(76/80)
0.75485.7%
(6/7)
55.6%
(5/9)
91.9%
(79/86)
90.5%
(76/84)
Para-aortic lymph nodes44.4%
(8/18)
44.4%
(8/18)
98.7%
(74/75)
94.7%
(71/75)
1.00088.9%
(8/9)
66.7%
(8/12)
88.1%
(74/84)
87.7%
(71/81)
Ascites97.8%
(45/46)
89.1%
(41/46)
97.9%
(46/47)
76.6%
(36/47)
0.21097.8%
(45/46)
78.8%
(41/52)
97.8%
(46/47)
87.8%
(36/41)
  • *McNemar test for comparing sensitivity and specificity.

  • CT, computed tomography; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.