Clinical decision rules for appendicitis are not used by surgeons in training: A survey.

BACKGROUNDS: We aimed to investigate surgeons in training knowledge of clinical decision rules (CDR) for diagnosing appendicitis and their attitudes toward implementing them. METHODS: We included surgeons in training practicing in East Denmark who independently could decide to perform a diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. The survey was developed in Research Electronic Data Capture and face-validated before use. It consisted of three parts: (1) the characteristics of the surgeons, (2) their diagnostic approach, and (3) their knowledge and attitude toward introducing CDR in the clinic. Data were collected in January 2023. RESULTS: We achieved 83 (90%) responses, and 52% of surgeons in training believed that appendicitis was difficult to diagnose. Their diagnostic approach mostly included symptoms and physical examinations for abdominal pain, and C-reactive protein. A total of 48% knew of at least one clinical decision rule, and 72% had never used a clinical decision rule. Regarding the necessity of CDR in clinical practice, surgeons in training options were divided into thirds: not needed, neither needed nor not needed, and needed. Surgeons in training indicated that CDR needed to be validated and easily applied before they would implement them. CONCLUSION: Approximately 3/4 of surgeons in training had never utilized a clinical decision rule to diagnose appendicitis, and only half knew of their existence. The symptoms and findings incorporated in most CDR aligned with their diagnostic approach. They were conflicted if CDR needed to be implemented in clinical practice.

Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to provide an overview of all diagnostic tools developed to diagnose appendicitis with their reported accuracy and to further characterize these including their need for diagnostic equipment. METHODS: This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências da Saúde, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. We included original articles of all languages with the purpose to derive an accessible diagnostic tool. We extracted data regarding study- and diagnostic tool characteristics, and the accuracy of each diagnostic tool. RESULTS: The search led to 6419 records, where 74 studies were included, yielding 82 diagnostic tools reported in seven different languages. Among these tools, 35% included patient characteristics, 85% symptoms, 93% physical examinations, 37% vital signs, 78% laboratory values, and 16% imaging. Among the diagnostic tools, 35% relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to a laboratory, and six diagnostic tools did not require a bedside medical doctor/surgeon. The median positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity across diagnostic tools were 91%, 94%, 89%, and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 82 diagnostic tools that most frequently were based on symptoms and physical examinations. Most diagnostic tools relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to laboratory values. The accuracy was high across the diagnostic tools.