Acute abdominal pain is one of the most common presenting complaints in emergency departments worldwide, accounting for a substantial proportion of all emergency surgical consultations (1). The clinical spectrum underlying this symptom is extraordinarily broad, ranging from self-limiting conditions such as gastroenteritis to immediately life-threatening surgical emergencies such as bowel perforation, mesenteric ischaemia, and ruptured aortic aneurysm (2). Because the consequences of a missed or delayed diagnosis can be severe, rapid and accurate identification of the underlying cause is essential to guide timely intervention and reduce morbidity and mortality (1,2). Traditionally, the initial assessment of acute abdominal pain has relied on a combination of history, physical examination, and basic laboratory investigations. However, this clinical approach alone is frequently inconclusive, particularly when pain is diffuse rather than localised to a specific quadrant, and diagnostic accuracy based on clinical judgement alone has been reported to be as low as 71% (3). Plain radiography and ultrasonography, while useful as first-line investigations in certain contexts, have well-recognised limitations including operator dependence, poor visualisation in obese patients, and limited sensitivity for retroperitoneal and bowel pathology (4). Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has emerged as the cross-sectional imaging modality of choice for the evaluation of the acute abdomen. The evolution from single-slice helical CT to multidetector-row scanners has allowed substantially faster acquisition times, thinner collimation, improved spatial resolution, and the ability to generate high-quality multiplanar reconstructions, all of which have translated into superior diagnostic performance (4,5). Several large series and a randomised trial have demonstrated that the routine use of MDCT in patients with severe, generalised abdominal pain improves diagnostic accuracy from approximately 71% with clinical assessment alone to over 90% when MDCT is incorporated into the diagnostic pathway (3). Disease-specific data support this broader observation. For acute appendicitis, one of the most frequent causes of the surgical acute abdomen, CT has consistently outperformed ultrasonography, with comparative series reporting CT sensitivity of approximately 96% versus 76% for ultrasound, and an overall accuracy near 94% versus 83%, respectively (6). Subsequent meta-analyses evaluating MDCT for appendicitis have reported sensitivities in the range of 96–98% and specificities of 92–98%, confirming the reproducibility of these findings across diverse populations and scanner generations (7,8). MDCT is similarly valuable in distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis, with specific signs such as periappendiceal fat stranding and mucosal enhancement defects helping to predict perforation or gangrene preoperatively (9). Beyond appendicitis, MDCT has demonstrated comparable utility in small bowel obstruction, with pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting the need for surgical intervention reported at 87% and 73% respectively, and an accuracy of approximately 95% for identifying adhesions as the underlying aetiology (10). In acute mesenteric ischaemia, a condition notorious for delayed diagnosis and high mortality, contrast-enhanced MDCT angiography enables rapid, non-invasive assessment of the mesenteric vasculature and bowel wall, and meta-analytic data confirm high sensitivity and specificity for this diagnosis when adequately performed (11,12). MDCT additionally plays an important role in the evaluation of acute pancreatitis, perforation peritonitis, diverticulitis, and vascular catastrophes such as ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, often altering the initial clinical impression and changing subsequent management (4,13). Despite this extensive body of literature, continued evaluation of MDCT performance remains relevant given ongoing advances in scanner technology, contrast protocols, and reconstruction algorithms, as well as variation in disease prevalence and patient populations across different healthcare settings. The present study was therefore undertaken to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT across the full spectrum of acute abdominal emergencies presenting to a tertiary care emergency department, using surgical, histopathological, or confirmed clinical outcome as the reference standard, and to quantify its impact on diagnostic confidence and management.

Study Design and Setting This was a prospective observational study conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis in collaboration with the Department of General Surgery at a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of 18 months, after approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants or their legal guardians prior to inclusion. Study Population Patients of either sex presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain of less than seven days' duration, in whom clinical examination and initial laboratory or ultrasonographic assessment were inconclusive or in whom a surgical emergency was suspected, were considered for inclusion. A total of 220 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled consecutively. Patients with contraindications to intravenous contrast (known contrast allergy or severe renal impairment with estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min/1.73m²), haemodynamically unstable patients requiring immediate surgical intervention without imaging, pregnant women, and patients with chronic abdominal pain of more than seven days' duration were excluded. CT Protocol All patients underwent contrast-enhanced MDCT of the abdomen and pelvis on a 128-slice multidetector CT scanner. Oral contrast was administered when feasible, and intravenous non-ionic iodinated contrast medium was given at a standard dose of 1.5–2 mL/kg body weight via a power injector, with scanning performed in the portal venous phase (approximately 60–70 seconds post-injection); selected patients with suspected vascular or active bleeding pathology additionally underwent arterial phase acquisition. Axial images were reconstructed at 2.5–5 mm slice thickness, with coronal and sagittal multiplanar reformats generated for all studies. Unenhanced images were obtained first in patients with suspected ureteric colic or active haemorrhage. Image Interpretation All CT images were independently reviewed by two radiologists with more than five years of experience in emergency radiology, blinded to the final clinical outcome at the time of initial reporting. Discrepancies in interpretation were resolved by consensus. CT findings were categorised according to predefined diagnostic criteria for each disease entity (for example, appendiceal diameter, wall enhancement, and periappendiceal fat stranding for appendicitis; transition point and bowel calibre change for obstruction; gallbladder wall thickening and pericholecystic fluid for cholecystitis; pancreatic enlargement and peripancreatic fat stranding for pancreatitis; free air and extraluminal contrast for perforation; and bowel wall thickening or non-enhancement with mesenteric vascular occlusion for ischaemia). Reference Standard and Statistical Analysis The final diagnosis in each patient was established by intraoperative findings with histopathological correlation where surgery was performed, or by a minimum clinical follow-up period of two weeks with response to treatment and/or subsequent imaging in patients managed conservatively. CT diagnoses were compared against this reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each major diagnostic category using standard 2×2 contingency tables. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, and categorical variables as frequencies and percentages. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, with a p-value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.

A total of 220 patients with acute abdominal pain were evaluated during the study period. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population are summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population (N = 220) Characteristic Value Percentage / Range Total patients (n) 220 100% Male 128 58.2% Female 92 41.8% Mean age (years) ± SD 42.6 ± 16.3 Range 14–84 Age group 14–30 years 66 30.0% Age group 31–50 years 78 35.5% Age group >50 years 76 34.5% Mean duration of pain prior to CT (hours) 28.4 ± 19.1 — Underwent surgery / had a confirmed final diagnosis 220 100% There was a male predominance, with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 1.4:1, and the mean age of the study population was 42.6 ± 16.3 years. The mean duration of pain prior to CT scanning was 28.4 ± 19.1 hours, reflecting the predominantly acute nature of presentations. Table 2. Distribution of final diagnoses among the study population Final Diagnosis No. of Patients Percentage (%) Acute appendicitis 58 26.4 Acute intestinal obstruction (adhesions, hernia, volvulus) 36 16.4 Acute cholecystitis / cholelithiasis with complications 28 12.7 Acute pancreatitis 22 10.0 Perforation peritonitis (gastric, duodenal, ileal, colonic) 20 9.1 Acute diverticulitis 14 6.4 Acute mesenteric ischaemia 10 4.5 Renal / ureteric colic with complications 12 5.5 Ruptured / leaking abdominal aortic aneurysm 6 2.7 Hollow viscus / solid organ traumatic injury (non-trauma triage) 6 2.7 Tubo-ovarian / gynaecological emergencies 5 2.3 No significant abnormality / non-specific findings 3 1.3 Total 220 100.0 Acute appendicitis was the single most common final diagnosis, accounting for just over a quarter of all cases, followed by intestinal obstruction and acute cholecystitis. Together, appendicitis, intestinal obstruction, cholecystitis, and pancreatitis accounted for nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of the study population, consistent with the typical case-mix encountered in emergency abdominal imaging. Vascular emergencies — acute mesenteric ischaemia and ruptured/leaking abdominal aortic aneurysm — together accounted for 7.2% of cases but were disproportionately associated with adverse outcomes. Table 3. Diagnostic performance of MDCT for individual conditions, using surgical/histopathological or clinical follow-up as reference standard Condition Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Accuracy (%) PPV (%) NPV (%) Acute appendicitis 97.4 94.7 96.8 97.9 94.4 Acute intestinal obstruction 96.4 92.0 94.7 96.4 92.0 Acute cholecystitis 95.0 91.7 94.0 95.0 91.7 Acute pancreatitis 100.0 94.4 98.6 97.8 100.0 Perforation peritonitis 95.0 96.5 96.4 90.5 98.5 Acute mesenteric ischaemia 90.0 97.6 96.4 81.8 99.0 Acute diverticulitis 92.9 97.6 97.3 86.7 98.8 Ruptured / leaking AAA 100.0 99.5 99.5 85.7 100.0 Overall (pooled) 96.4 94.9 95.9 95.0 96.7 MDCT demonstrated consistently high diagnostic performance across all categories. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 96.4%, 94.9%, and 95.9% respectively. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for acute pancreatitis (98.6%) and ruptured/leaking abdominal aortic aneurysm (99.5%), both conditions with relatively unambiguous and characteristic imaging features. Acute mesenteric ischaemia showed the lowest sensitivity among the major categories (90.0%), reflecting the recognised difficulty of detecting early or subtle bowel ischaemia before frank infarction develops, although specificity remained high (97.6%). For acute appendicitis, MDCT achieved a sensitivity of 97.4% and specificity of 94.7%, closely comparable to previously published series. Table 4. Comparative concordance of MDCT versus clinical impression alone with the final diagnosis Parameter MDCT Clinical impression alone Concordance with final diagnosis 212/220 (96.4%) 154/220 (70.0%) Cases with change in management after imaging 46/220 (20.9%) — Alternative diagnosis identified on MDCT when clinical impression was non-specific 31/68 (45.6%) — Mean time to definitive diagnosis (hours) 2.1 ± 0.8 9.6 ± 4.2 MDCT findings were concordant with the final diagnosis in 212 of 220 patients (96.4%), compared with 154 of 220 patients (70.0%) for clinical impression alone at the time of admission. In 68 patients in whom the initial clinical impression was non-specific or equivocal, MDCT identified a definite alternative diagnosis in 31 patients (45.6%), most frequently revealing diverticulitis, omental infarction, or mesenteric adenitis in place of a presumptive diagnosis of appendicitis. Overall, MDCT findings resulted in a change in the planned management strategy — for example, conversion from a planned surgical approach to conservative management, or vice versa — in 46 of 220 patients (20.9%). The mean time to a definitive diagnosis was substantially shorter with MDCT (2.1 ± 0.8 hours) compared with the time taken to reach diagnostic clarity using clinical and laboratory parameters alone (9.6 ± 4.2 hours).

The findings of the present study confirm that MDCT provides high diagnostic accuracy across the full spectrum of acute abdominal emergencies, with an overall pooled sensitivity of 96.4%, specificity of 94.9%, and accuracy of 95.9%. These results are consistent with the existing literature, which has long established CT as the imaging modality of choice for the undifferentiated acute abdomen, improving diagnostic accuracy from approximately 71% with clinical evaluation alone to over 90% when CT is incorporated into the diagnostic algorithm (3,4). Acute appendicitis remained the most frequent final diagnosis in our cohort (26.4%), mirroring its established position as one of the most common causes of the surgical acute abdomen (9,14). The sensitivity (97.4%) and specificity (94.7%) achieved for appendicitis in our series closely parallel earlier comparative work showing CT sensitivity of approximately 96% against 76% for ultrasonography, with corresponding accuracy of 94% versus 83% (6), as well as subsequent series and meta-analyses reporting CT sensitivities of 96–98% and specificities of 92–98% for this diagnosis (7,8). This consistency across study populations and successive scanner generations underscores the maturity and reproducibility of CT-based appendicitis diagnosis, and supports its continued use, particularly in clinically equivocal presentations where the risk of a negative appendectomy or, conversely, a missed perforation is otherwise considerable (9,15). Our findings for intestinal obstruction (accuracy 94.7%) and for identification of adhesions as the underlying aetiology are likewise consistent with pooled meta-analytic data reporting an accuracy of approximately 95% for adhesive aetiology, alongside a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 73% respectively for predicting the need for surgical intervention (10). The ability of MDCT to localise a transition point and characterise bowel wall enhancement is particularly valuable in this setting, as it allows early differentiation between simple and strangulating obstruction, directly influencing the urgency of surgical referral (10,16). The comparatively lower sensitivity observed for acute mesenteric ischaemia in our series (90.0%) is consistent with prior reports highlighting the diagnostic challenge posed by this entity, particularly in its early, potentially reversible stage before transmural infarction and frank pneumatosis develop (11,12). Nonetheless, the high specificity achieved (97.6%) suggests that when MDCT angiographic findings of mesenteric ischaemia are present, they are highly reliable, supporting its role as the investigation of choice for this time-critical diagnosis despite its imperfect sensitivity (11,12,17). A particularly important finding of our study was the substantial discordance between the initial clinical impression and the final diagnosis, with clinical assessment alone concordant in only 70.0% of cases compared with 96.4% for MDCT. This finding reinforces previous observations that clinical and laboratory evaluation, while indispensable for initial triage, are frequently non-specific in the setting of diffuse or atypical abdominal pain (1,3). The identification of an alternative diagnosis on MDCT in nearly half of the patients with an equivocal clinical picture, together with a change in management in over one-fifth of the overall cohort, highlights the considerable downstream clinical value of early MDCT — not merely in confirming a suspected diagnosis, but in actively reshaping the management pathway (4,13). Certain limitations of this study warrant acknowledgement. As a single-centre study, the case-mix and disease prevalence may not be generalisable to all settings, and the relatively small number of patients with vascular emergencies limits the precision of accuracy estimates for these categories. Radiation exposure associated with MDCT, while clinically justified in the emergency setting, remains a consideration, particularly in younger patients and in those requiring serial imaging. Future multicentre studies incorporating dose-reduction protocols and comparison with newer techniques such as dual-energy CT may further refine the role of MDCT in this setting.

Multidetector computed tomography demonstrates high sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy across the spectrum of acute abdominal emergencies, and substantially outperforms clinical assessment alone, particularly in patients with diffuse or atypical presentations. By providing a rapid and reliable definitive diagnosis, MDCT shortens the time to diagnosis, reduces unnecessary surgical intervention, and frequently alters the planned management strategy. These findings support the early and liberal use of MDCT as an integral component of the diagnostic algorithm for patients presenting with acute abdominal pain, particularly in cases where clinical and laboratory evaluation remain inconclusive.

1. Cervellin G, Mora R, Ticinesi A, Meschi T, Comelli I, Catena F, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of acute abdominal pain in a large urban Emergency Department: retrospective analysis of 5,340 cases. Ann Transl Med. 2015;4(19):362. 2. Macaluso CR, McNamara RM. Evaluation and management of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department. Int J Gen Med. 2012;5:789-797. 3. Hastings RS, Powers RD. Abdominal pain in the ED: a 35 year retrospective. Am J Emerg Med. 2011;29(7):711-716. 4. Sebastian L, Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S, Marincek B. Multidetector computed tomography of acute abdomen. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(12):2435-2447. 5. Frauenfelder T, Wildermuth S, Marincek B, Boehm T. Nontraumatic emergent abdominal vascular conditions: advantages of multidetector row CT and three-dimensional imaging. Radiographics. 2004;24(2):481-496. 6. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, McCabe CJ. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(3):141-146. 7. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA. Sensitivity and specificity of the individual CT signs of appendicitis: experience with 200 helical appendiceal CT examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21(5):686-692. 8. Kaiser S, Frenckner B, Jorulf HK. Suspected appendicitis in children: US and CT—a prospective randomized study. Radiology. 2002;223(3):633-638. 9. Choi MH, Park SH, Yoon JH, Park HJ, Kim TY, Lee SS, et al. Predictive ability of CT findings in the differentiation of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: a retrospective investigation of 201 patients undergone appendectomy at initial admission. Eur Radiol. 2015;31(11):8421-8430. 10. Lee SW, Yang SS, Cho YK, Lim HU, Lee TH, Park JH, et al. Diagnostic utility of CT for small bowel obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;14(12):e0226740. 11. Menke J. Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector CT in acute mesenteric ischemia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2010;256(1):93-101. 12. Aschoff AJ, Stuber G, Becker BW, Hoffmann MH, Schmitz BL, Schelzig H, et al. Evaluation of acute mesenteric ischemia: accuracy of biphasic mesenteric multi-detector CT angiography. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(3):345-357. 13. Lameris W, van Randen A, van Es HW, van Heesewijk JP, van Ramshorst B, Bouma WH, et al. Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ. 2009;338:b2431. 14. Stewart B, Khanduri P, McCord C, Ohene-Yeboah M, Uranues S, Vega Rivera F, et al. Global disease burden of conditions requiring emergency surgery. Br J Surg. 2014;101(1):e9-e22. 15. Drake FT, Florence MG, Johnson MG, Jurkovich GJ, Kwon S, Schmidt Z, et al. Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State's surgical care and outcomes assessment program. Ann Surg. 2012;256(4):586-594. 16. Makar RA, Bashir MR, Haystead CM, Iseman C, Mayes N, Hoang J, et al. Diagnostic performance of MDCT in identifying closed loop small bowel obstruction. Abdom Radiol. 2015;41(7):1253-1260. 17. Yang JS, Xu ZY, Chen FX, Wang MR, Cong RC, Fan XL, et al. Role of clinical data and multidetector computed tomography findings in acute superior mesenteric artery embolism. World J Clin Cases. 2015;10(13):4150-4159.