Suicide after colorectal cancer-a national population-based study.

AIM: A cancer diagnosis is often associated with physical as well as emotional distress. Previous studies indicate a higher risk for suicide in patients diagnosed with cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of death by suicide in a national cohort of patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer compared with a matched control group to determine if patients with colorectal cancer had an increased incidence of death by suicide. METHOD: This national Swedish cohort was retrieved from the register-based research database CRCBaSe, which includes all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 1997-2006 (rectal) and 2008-2016 (colon) and six controls for each patient matched by age, sex, and county. Cause specific mortality due to suicide was modelled using Cox proportional hazards model and adjusted for known risk factors. RESULTS: The main analysis included patients operated for colorectal cancer, 55 578 patients compared with 307 888 controls. The first year after diagnosis the hazard ratio (HR) for suicide among patients operated for colorectal cancer was 1.86 (CI: 1.18-2.95) compared to controls. Suicide was more common among men than women (HR 2.08; 1.26-3.42 vs. 1.09; 0.32-3.75). A subgroup analysis of the 9198 patients who did not undergo surgery after diagnoses found a seven-fold increase of suicide (HR 7.03; 3.10-15.91). CONCLUSION: Suicide after surgery for colorectal cancer was almost twice as high as in the control group, mainly driven by excess mortality among men. Although the cases were few in the subgroup of nonoperated patients, the considerably higher risk of suicide indicates that more resources might be needed in this group. Evaluation of risk factors for suicide among patients with colorectal cancer should be performed for early identification of individuals at risk.

A practical guide for writing a PhD thesis.

There is an increasing number of PhD students in health sciences, but no formal reporting guideline for writing a thesis exists. This review provides a practical guide with an overview of the article-based/synopsis PhD thesis that consists of eight parts: 1) initial formalities, 2) introduction, 3) methodological considerations, 4) study presentations, 5) discussion, 6) conclusion, 7) perspectives, and 8) concluding formalities. It is elaborated with detailed information, practical advice, and a template, so the thesis complies with the demands of the Danish Graduate Schools of Health Sciences.

AI in medical research.

This review delves into the possible role of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical research, from planning to publication. AI can aid in idea generation, data analysis, and writing, with tools like chatbots and transcription systems enhancing efficiency. However, AI's limitations, including the "hallucination" problem in which it generates false information, require careful use and verification. Ensuring anonymity compliance with sensitive data is also vital. AI's transformative potential in research brings opportunities for innovation, necessitating mindful application to manage biases and data accuracy.

Coatings for Permanent Meshes Used to Enhance Healing in Abdominal Hernia Repair: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Hernia meshes are used to reduce recurrence and pain rates, but the rates are still high. This could be improved with coatings of the mesh. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of mesh coatings used to promote healing in abdominal hernia repair and to report beneficial and unbeneficial effects. METHODS: We included human and animal studies with abdominal hernias that were repaired with non-commercially coated meshes. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central, LILACS, and CNKI without language constraints. RESULTS: Of 2933 identified studies, 58 were included: six studies had a total of 408 humans and 52 studies had 2679 animals. The median follow-up was 12 months (range 1-156), and 95% of the hernias were incisional. There were 44 different coatings which included platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cells, growth factors, vitamin E, collagen-derived products, various polysaccharides, silk proteins, chitosan, gentamycin, doxycycline, nitrofurantoin, titanium, and diamond-like carbon. Mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma were the most researched. Mesenchymal stem cells notably reduced inflammation and foreign body reactions but did not impact other healing metrics. In contrast, platelet-rich plasma positively influenced tissue ingrowth, collagen deposition, and neovascularization and had varying effects on inflammation and foreign body reactions. CONCLUSION: We identified 44 different mesh coatings and they showed varying results. Mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma were the most studied, with the latter showing considerable promise in improving biomechanical properties in hernia repair. Further investigations are needed to ascertain their definitive use in humans.

Diverticulitis Is Associated with Increased Risk of Colon Cancer-A Nationwide Register-Based Cohort Study.

Background: An association between diverticulitis and colon cancer has been proposed. The evidence is conflicting, and the guidelines differ regarding recommended follow-up with colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis. To guide regimes for follow-up, this study aimed to investigate if patients with diverticulitis have an increased risk of colon cancer. Methods: This study is reported according to the RECORD statement. We performed a cohort study with linked data from nationwide Danish registers. The inclusion period was 1997-2009, and the complete study period was 1995-2013. The primary outcome was the risk of developing colon cancer estimated using a Cox regression analysis with time-varying covariates. We performed a sensitivity analysis on a cohort of people with prior colonoscopies, comparing the risk of colon cancer between the diverticulitis group and the control group. Results: We included 29,173 adult males and females with diverticulitis and 145,865 controls matched for sex and age. The incidence proportion of colon cancer was 2.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-2.3) in the diverticulitis group and 1.5% (95% CI 1.4-1.5) in the matched control group (hazard ratio 1.6; 95% CI 1.5-1.8). The risk of having a colon cancer diagnosis was significantly increased in the first six months after inclusion (hazard ratio 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-1.8), and hereafter there was a lower risk in the diverticulitis group compared with controls (hazard ratio 0.8; 95% CI 0.7-0.9). This protective effect lasted eight years. The increased risk of colon cancer during the first six months after diverticulitis was also found in the cohort with prior colonoscopies. Conclusions: The risk of a colon cancer diagnosis was significantly increased for patients with diverticulitis 0-6 months after the diagnosis of diverticulitis. Hereafter, we found a protective effect of diverticulitis until eight years later, possibly due to a screening effect. We recommend a follow-up colonoscopy after the first diagnosis of diverticulitis.

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period. METHODS: This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%. RESULTS: We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 30 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. However, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear. To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize the aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports. METHODS: In this scoping review, we systematically searched for biomedical literature reports from 1993 to 2023 in two databases, focusing on those addressing and defining research waste. Through data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste. RESULTS: Based on 4285 initial records in the searches, a total of 832 reports were included in the analysis. The included reports were primarily narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into five aspects: methodological, invisible, negligible, underreported, and structural (MINUS) research waste. More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data-sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, for example, stemming from the absence of preceding a trial with a systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting, resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination. CONCLUSION: MINUS encapsulates the five main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste and thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.

The microbiome of the appendix differs in patients with and without appendicitis: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis seems to be a disease of infectious origin, but the detailed pathogenesis is unknown. We aimed to investigate the microbiome of the appendix lumen in patients with and without appendicitis, including a comparison of the subgroups of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included adult patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. According to histopathologic findings, the investigated groups consisted of patients with and without appendicitis, including subgroups of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis based on the surgical report. A swab of the appendix lumen was analyzed for genetic material from bacteria with shotgun metagenomics, and outcomes included analyses of microbiome diversity and differential abundance of bacteria. RESULTS: A total of 53 swabs from patients with suspected appendicitis were analyzed: 42 with appendicitis (16 complicated) and 11 without appendicitis. When comparing patients with and without appendicitis, they were equally rich in bacteria (alpha diversity), but the microbiome composition was dissimilar between these groups (beta diversity) (P < .01). No consistent bacterial species were detected in all patients with appendicitis, but a least 3 genera (Blautia, Faecalibacterium, and Fusicatenibacter) and 2 species, Blautia faecis and Blautia wexlerae, were more abundant in patients without appendicitis. For the subgroups complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis, both measures for microbiome diversity were similar. CONCLUSION: The appendix microbiome composition of genetic material from bacteria in adult patients with and without appendicitis differed, but the microbiome was similar for patients with complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Trial registration NCT03349814.

Critical reading of systematic review articles.

A systematic review provides an overview of primary studies investigating a given research question, e.g., the effect of a certain treatment. Individual study results are sometimes synthesised in a meta-analysis. A critical reader should consider whether the systematic review is relevant and reliable, e.g., does it follow a protocol, address the risk of bias, and consider potential heterogeneity. PRISMA 2020 guideline recommends a minimum set of items that should be reported in a systematic review article, and AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS are tools for critical appraisal of systematic reviews.

Surgery in the elderly patients with cancer.

With an increasing aging population, there will be a greater need for cancer evaluation and treatment in older patients. Age alone is not a good predictor of postoperative morbidity, and a multidisciplinary approach is crucial for managing comorbidities. Preoperative optimisation, such as prehabilitation, may in some cases reduce postoperative complications, and minimal invasive techniques should be preferred whenever possible. In general, as summarised in this review, cancer treatment in older patients should be individualised based on comorbidities and life expectancy.

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.

The symptom burden and the assessment of palliative symptoms in patients with metastatic upper gastrointestinal cancer: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with metastatic upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer may experience a large physical symptom burden. However, less is known about existential, social, and psychological symptoms. To provide the patient with palliative care, quality-of-life questionnaires are used for structured needs assessment. These are sporadically implemented, and there seems to be uncertainty to the efficiency of current practice. The aim of study was to explore the experienced assessment-process and treatment of palliative symptoms, as well as the experienced symptom burden, in patients with metastatic upper GI cancer. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted in 10 patients with metastatic upper GI cancer. Data were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: The patients did not expect treatment for all physical symptoms. Existential symptoms revolved around death and dying, social issues were mainly related to family, and psychological issues were based in the continuous dealing with serious illness. Existential, social, and psychological symptoms were mostly not considered part of the expected care when admitted to hospital. Patients had only vague recollections of their experiences with structured needs assessment, and the process had been inconsequential in the treatment of symptoms. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Patients with upper GI cancer experience symptoms related to all 4 areas of palliative care being physical, existential, social, and psychological, but these are differentiated in the way patients perceive their origins and treatability. Structured needs assessment was not routinely carried out, and in cases where this had been done, no follow-up was effectuated. This calls for increased focus and proper implementation for the process to be relevant in the treatment of palliative symptoms.

Parenteral Fosfomycin in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: To investigate if perioperative parenteral administration of fosfomycin given before or during gastrointestinal surgery could protect against postoperative infectious complications and characterise the administration of fosfomycin and its harms. METHODS: This systematic review included original studies on gastrointestinal surgery where parental administration of fosfomycin was given before or during surgery to≥5 patients. We searched three databases on March 24 2023 and registered the protocol before data extraction (CRD42020201268). Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Handbook risk of bias assessment tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative description was undertaken. For infectious complications, results from emergency and elective surgery were presented separately. RESULTS: We included 15 unique studies, reporting on 1,029 patients that received fosfomycin before or during gastrointestinal surgery. Almost half of the studies were conducted in the 1980s to early 1990s, and typically a dose of 4 g fosfomycin was given before surgery co-administered with metronidazole and often repeated postoperatively. The risk of bias across studies was moderate to high. The rates of infectious complications were low after fosfomycin; the surgical site infection rate was 0-1% in emergency surgery and 0-10% in elective surgery. If reported, harms were few and mild and typically related to the gastrointestinal system. CONCLUSION: There were few postoperative infectious complications after perioperative parenteral administration of one or more doses of 4 g fosfomycin supplemented with metronidazole in various gastrointestinal procedures. Fosfomycin was associated with few and mild harms.

Christmas article: Well-being in hot weather ­ a randomised crossover trial.

Introduction While some studies have investigated the cooling properties of warm beverages, no studies have examined thermal well-being in warm environments in relation to beverage temperature. Methods Thirty researchers were randomised in a 1:1 ratio in a double-blinded cross-over study. Participants were randomised to drink 10cl of 10°C and 50°C decaffeinated tea, 15 minutes apart while staying outside in the Turkish summer heat at noon. Well-being was assessed using the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) thermal sensation scale, Bedford thermal comfort scale, Brief Mood Introspection Scale (BMIS), and the last two domains of EuroQol 5-domain, 5-point scale: EQ-5D-5L. Results Neither clinically nor statistically significant differences were found in well-being between warm and cold tea. Moods soured significantly as the trial course passed (using BMIS, µ 1.9; P=0.03), but comfort in the heat bettered (using Bedford, µ -0.37; P less-than 0.001). These changes were not considered to be clinically significant. Conclusion We were unable to show any correlation between beverage temperature and comfort in a hot environment. The mood of participants did, however, deteriorate as time passed-a lesson to any future researchers conducting drawn-out experiments just before lunch. Funding none. Trial registration NCT05900960.

ChatGPT-4 and Human Researchers Are Equal in Writing Scientific Introduction Sections: A Blinded, Randomized, Non-inferiority Controlled Study.

Background Natural language processing models are increasingly used in scientific research, and their ability to perform various tasks in the research process is rapidly advancing. This study aims to investigate whether Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) is equal to humans in writing introduction sections for scientific articles. Methods This randomized non-inferiority study was reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for non-inferiority trials and artificial intelligence (AI) guidelines. GPT-4 was instructed to synthesize 18 introduction sections based on the aim of previously published studies, and these sections were compared to the human-written introductions already published in a medical journal. Eight blinded assessors randomly evaluated the introduction sections using 1-10 Likert scales. Results There was no significant difference between GPT-4 and human introductions regarding publishability and content quality. GPT-4 had one point significantly better scores in readability, which was considered a non-relevant difference. The majority of assessors (59%) preferred GPT-4, while 33% preferred human-written introductions. Based on Lix and Flesch-Kincaid scores, GPT-4 introductions were 10 and two points higher, respectively, indicating that the sentences were longer and had longer words. Conclusion GPT-4 was found to be equal to humans in writing introductions regarding publishability, readability, and content quality. The majority of assessors preferred GPT-4 introductions and less than half could determine which were written by GPT-4 or humans. These findings suggest that GPT-4 can be a useful tool for writing introduction sections, and further studies should evaluate its ability to write other parts of scientific articles.

Mesh versus non-mesh for emergency groin hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: A groin hernia is a collective name for inguinal and femoral hernias, which can present acutely with incarceration or strangulation of the hernia sac content, requiring emergency treatment. Timely repair of emergency groin hernias is crucial due to the risk of reduced blood supply and thus damage to the bowel, but the optimal surgical approach is unclear. While mesh repair is the standard treatment for elective hernia surgery, using mesh for emergency groin hernia repair remains controversial due to the risk of surgical site infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of mesh compared with non-mesh in emergency groin hernia repair in adult patients with an inguinal or femoral hernia. SEARCH METHODS: On 5 August 2022, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid, as well as two trial registers for ongoing and completed trials. Additionally, we performed forward and backward citation searches for the included trials and relevant review articles. We searched without any language or publication restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mesh with non-mesh repair in emergency groin hernia surgery in adults. We included any mesh and any non-mesh repairs. All studies fulfilling the study, participant, and intervention criteria were included irrespective of reported outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We based missing data analysis on best- and worst-case scenarios. For outcomes with sufficiently low heterogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We analysed subgroups when feasible, including the degree of contamination. We used RoB 2 for risk of bias assessment, and summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials randomising 1241 participants undergoing emergency groin hernia surgery with either mesh (626 participants) or non-mesh hernia repair (615 participants). The studies were conducted in China, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most patients were men, and most participants had an inguinal hernia (41 participants had femoral hernias). The mean/median age in the mesh group ranged from 35 to 70 years, and from 41 to 69 years in the non-mesh group. All studies were performed in a hospital emergency setting (tertiary care) and lasted for 11 to 139 months, with a median study duration of 31 months. The majority of the studies only included participants with clean to clean-contaminated surgical fields. For all outcomes, we considered the certainty of the evidence to be very low, mainly downgraded due to high risk of bias (due to deviations from intended intervention and missing outcome data), indirectness, and imprecision. Mesh hernia repair may have no effect on or slightly increase the risk of 30-day surgical site infections (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; I² = 21%; 2 studies, 454 participants) when compared with non-mesh hernia repair, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of mesh hernia repair compared with non-mesh hernia repair on 30-day mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.28; 1 study, 208 participants). In summary, the results showed 70 more (from 5 fewer to 200 more) surgical site infections and 29 more (from 32 fewer to 175 more) deaths within 30 days of mesh hernia repair per 1000 participants compared with non-mesh hernia repair. The evidence is very uncertain about 90-day surgical site infections after mesh versus non-mesh hernia repair (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.64; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No 30-day recurrences were recorded, and mesh hernia repair may not reduce recurrence within one year (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.03; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Within 30 days of hernia repair, no meshes were removed from clean to clean-contaminated fields, but 6.7% of meshes (1 study, 208 participants) were removed from contaminated to dirty surgical fields. Among the four studies reporting 90-day mesh removal, no events occurred. We were not able to identify any studies reporting complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification or reoperation for complications within 30 days of repair. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that in terms of 30-day surgical site infections, 30-day mortality, and hernia recurrence within one year, the evidence for the use of mesh hernia repair compared with non-mesh hernia repair in emergency groin hernia surgery is very uncertain. Unfortunately, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to very low-certainty evidence and meta-analyses based on small-sized and low-quality studies. There is a need for future high-quality RCTs or high-quality registry-based studies if RCTs are unfeasible.

A comparison of cover letters written by ChatGPT-4 or humans.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence has started to become a part of scientific studies and may help researchers with a wide range of tasks. However, no scientific studies have been published on its ussefulness in writing cover letters for scientific articles. This study aimed to determine whether Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT)-4 is as good as humans in writing cover letters for scientific papers. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority study, we included two parallel arms consisting of cover letters written by humans and by GPT-4. Each arm had 18 cover letters, which were assessed by three different blinded assessors. The assessors completed a questionnaire in which they had to assess the cover letters with respect to impression, readability, criteria satisfaction, and degree of detail. Subsequently, we performed readability tests with Lix score and Flesch Kincaid grade level. RESULTS: No significant or relevant difference was found on any parameter. A total of 61% of the blinded assessors guessed correctly as to whether the cover letter was written by GPT-4 or a human. GPT-4 had a higher score according to our objective readability tests. Nevertheless, it performed better than human writing on readability in the subjective assessments. CONCLUSION: We found that GPT-4 was non-inferior at writing cover letters compared to humans. This may be used to streamline cover letters for researchers, providing an equal chance to all researchers for advancement to peer-review. FUNDING: This study received no financial support from external sources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was not registered before the study commenced.

A survey of preoperative diagnosis and management of complicated appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: Complicated appendicitis is a severe condition, requiring early diagnosis and intervention to prevent complications. We aimed to investigate how resident surgeons distinguish and manage complicated appendicitis and their perspectives on preoperative diagnostic markers. METHODS: The electronic survey was face validated. It contained questions about demographics, resident surgeons' considerations on the preoperative diagnosis of complicated appendicitis, and views on the need for and relevance of preoperative diagnostic markers. It was sent to all resident surgeons in the Eastern part of Denmark. RESULTS: Seven hospitals and their 92 resident surgeons received the survey, and 90% responded. Most resident surgeons used symptoms and signs of pain to diagnose suspected complicated appendicitis. Half of the surgeons used computed tomographies, and 95% used routine blood tests. Most surgeons (83%) would change the management of patients with preoperatively diagnosed complicated appendicitis in comparison to uncomplicated appendicitis. However, only 17% felt the need for a preoperative diagnostic marker. CONCLUSIONS: Resident surgeons in Eastern Denmark use non-specific diagnostic techniques to distinguish complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis and would change treatment if appendicitis was diagnosed preoperatively. However, despite limited interest, our results suggest a need for new diagnostic markers to differentiate between the severity of appendicitis, thus enhancing education and training in managing such cases. FUNDING: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION: None.