Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate®

Acute appendicitis in adults: Diagnostic evaluation

Ronald F Martin, MD
Section Editor
Martin Weiser, MD
Deputy Editor
Wenliang Chen, MD, PhD


The diagnosis of acute appendicitis is typically based upon the findings from the medical history and clinical examination and is supported by the laboratory and/or imaging findings.

This topic will review the diagnostic studies, including radiographic studies and laboratory tests that can assist in establishing the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the adult. The clinical manifestations of acute appendicitis and the operative and nonoperative management are reviewed as separate topics. (See "Acute appendicitis in adults: Clinical manifestations and differential diagnosis" and "Management of acute appendicitis in adults".)


The diagnosis of acute appendicitis is generally made from the history and clinical examination; the diagnosis is supported by the laboratory and/or imaging findings. The patient presenting with acute abdominal pain should undergo a thorough physical examination, including a digital rectal examination. Women should undergo a pelvic examination. (See "Causes of abdominal pain in adults" and "Evaluation of the adult with abdominal pain".)

An experienced examiner can make the correct diagnosis of appendicitis without imaging [1]. Several studies have found the diagnostic accuracy of clinical evaluation alone to be 75 to 90 percent [2-5]. The diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination may depend on the experience of the examining clinician [6-11]. Patients in whom appendicitis is considered to be extremely likely after assessment by an experienced clinician should proceed directly to appendectomy without further radiologic testing. (See "Management of acute appendicitis in adults".)

The diagnosis of acute appendicitis can be difficult and a delay can result in perforation rates as high as 80 percent [12,13]. However, a retrospective review of 9048 adults with acute appendicitis found that the mean time from presentation to operation (8.6 hours) was not associated with risk of perforation [14]. Factors associated with increased risk of perforation included male gender (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), increasing age (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), three or more comorbid illnesses (RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.36-3.49), and lack of medical insurance coverage (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24-1.66).


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Jan 2017. | This topic last updated: Wed May 25 00:00:00 GMT+00:00 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Andersson RE. Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004; 91:28.
  2. Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS. Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001; 136:556.
  3. Berry J Jr, Malt RA. Appendicitis near its centenary. Ann Surg 1984; 200:567.
  4. Hong JJ, Cohn SM, Ekeh AP, et al. A prospective randomized study of clinical assessment versus computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003; 4:231.
  5. Park JS, Jeong JH, Lee JI, et al. Accuracies of diagnostic methods for acute appendicitis. Am Surg 2013; 79:101.
  6. Kosloske AM, Love CL, Rohrer JE, et al. The diagnosis of appendicitis in children: outcomes of a strategy based on pediatric surgical evaluation. Pediatrics 2004; 113:29.
  7. Morris KT, Kavanagh M, Hansen P, et al. The rational use of computed tomography scans in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Am J Surg 2002; 183:547.
  8. Liu CC, Lu CL, Yen DH, et al. Diagnosis of appendicitis in the ED: comparison of surgical and nonsurgical residents. Am J Emerg Med 2001; 19:109.
  9. Denizbasi A, Unluer EE. The role of the emergency medicine resident using the Alvarado score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis compared with the general surgery resident. Eur J Emerg Med 2003; 10:296.
  10. Kharbanda AB, Fishman SJ, Bachur RG. Comparison of pediatric emergency physicians' and surgeons' evaluation and diagnosis of appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 2008; 15:119.
  11. Yen K, Karpas A, Pinkerton HJ, Gorelick MH. Interexaminer reliability in physical examination of pediatric patients with abdominal pain. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005; 159:373.
  12. Daehlin L. Acute appendicitis during the first three years of life. Acta Chir Scand 1982; 148:291.
  13. Horattas MC, Guyton DP, Wu D. A reappraisal of appendicitis in the elderly. Am J Surg 1990; 160:291.
  14. Drake FT, Mottey NE, Farrokhi ET, et al. Time to appendectomy and risk of perforation in acute appendicitis. JAMA Surg 2014; 149:837.
  15. Pittman-Waller VA, Myers JG, Stewart RM, et al. Appendicitis: why so complicated? Analysis of 5755 consecutive appendectomies. Am Surg 2000; 66:548.
  16. Jaffe, BM, Berger, DH. The Appendix. In: Schwartz Principles of Surgery, 8th ed, Schwartz, SI, Brunicardi, CF (Ed), McGraw-Hill Health Pub. Division, New York 2005.
  17. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 1997; 202:139.
  18. Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, et al. Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg 1997; 225:252.
  19. Ceydeli A, Lavotshkin S, Yu J, Wise L. When should we order a CT scan and when should we rely on the results to diagnose an acute appendicitis? Curr Surg 2006; 63:464.
  20. Townsend, CM, Beauchamp, RD, Evers, BM, Mattox, KL. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery, 18th ed, Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA 2007.
  21. 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; 21:686.
  22. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986; 15:557.
  23. Kalan M, Talbot D, Cunliffe WJ, Rich AJ. Evaluation of the modified Alvarado score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a prospective study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994; 76:418.
  24. Meltzer AC, Baumann BM, Chen EH, et al. Poor sensitivity of a modified Alvarado score in adults with suspected appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 2013; 62:126.
  25. Ozkan S, Duman A, Durukan P, et al. The accuracy rate of Alvarado score, ultrasonography, and computerized tomography scan in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in our center. Niger J Clin Pract 2014; 17:413.
  26. Ohle R, O'Reilly F, O'Brien KK, et al. The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review. BMC Med 2011; 9:139.
  27. McKay R, Shepherd J. The use of the clinical scoring system by Alvarado in the decision to perform computed tomography for acute appendicitis in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2007; 25:489.
  28. Horzić M, Salamon A, Kopljar M, et al. Analysis of scores in diagnosis of acute appendicitis in women. Coll Antropol 2005; 29:133.
  29. Ohmann C, Franke C, Yang Q. Clinical benefit of a diagnostic score for appendicitis: results of a prospective interventional study. German Study Group of Acute Abdominal Pain. Arch Surg 1999; 134:993.
  30. Enochsson L, Gudbjartsson T, Hellberg A, et al. The Fenyö-Lindberg scoring system for appendicitis increases positive predictive value in fertile women--a prospective study in 455 patients randomized to either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Surg Endosc 2004; 18:1509.
  31. Liu JL, Wyatt JC, Deeks JJ, et al. Systematic reviews of clinical decision tools for acute abdominal pain. Health Technol Assess 2006; 10:1.
  32. SCOAP Collaborative, Cuschieri J, Florence M, et al. Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg 2008; 248:557.
  33. Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K, et al. Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact? Surgery 2008; 144:276.
  34. Schuler JG, Shortsleeve MJ, Goldenson RS, et al. Is there a role for abdominal computed tomographic scans in appendicitis? Arch Surg 1998; 133:373.
  35. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 2001; 286:1748.
  36. Flum DR, McClure TD, Morris A, Koepsell T. Misdiagnosis of appendicitis and the use of diagnostic imaging. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 201:933.
  37. Jones K, Peña AA, Dunn EL, et al. Are negative appendectomies still acceptable? Am J Surg 2004; 188:748.
  38. Wilson EB. Surgical evaluation of appendicitis in the new era of radiographic imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2003; 24:65.
  39. Whitley S, Sookur P, McLean A, Power N. The appendix on CT. Clin Radiol 2009; 64:190.
  40. Choi D, Park H, Lee YR, et al. The most useful findings for diagnosing acute appendicitis on contrast-enhanced helical CT. Acta Radiol 2003; 44:574.
  41. Perez J, Barone JE, Wilbanks TO, et al. Liberal use of computed tomography scanning does not improve diagnostic accuracy in appendicitis. Am J Surg 2003; 185:194.
  42. Gaitini D, Beck-Razi N, Mor-Yosef D, et al. Diagnosing acute appendicitis in adults: accuracy of color Doppler sonography and MDCT compared with surgery and clinical follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190:1300.
  43. Terasawa T, Blackmore CC, Bent S, Kohlwes RJ. Systematic review: computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141:537.
  44. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. Helical CT combined with contrast material administered only through the colon for imaging of suspected appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:1275.
  45. Ege G, Akman H, Sahin A, et al. Diagnostic value of unenhanced helical CT in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Radiol 2002; 75:721.
  46. Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA, et al. Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:405.
  47. Lee SL, Ho HS. Ultrasonography and computed tomography in suspected acute appendicitis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2003; 24:69.
  48. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000; 215:337.
  49. Kessler N, Cyteval C, Gallix B, et al. Appendicitis: evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of US, Doppler US, and laboratory findings. Radiology 2004; 230:472.
  50. Jeffrey RB Jr, Laing FC, Townsend RR. Acute appendicitis: sonographic criteria based on 250 cases. Radiology 1988; 167:327.
  51. Petkovska I, Martin DR, Covington MF, et al. Accuracy of Unenhanced MR Imaging in the Detection of Acute Appendicitis: Single-Institution Clinical Performance Review. Radiology 2016; 279:451.
  52. Duke E, Kalb B, Arif-Tiwari H, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206:508.
  53. Romero J, Sanabria A, Angarita M, Varón JC. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography and ultrasound in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Biomedica 2008; 28:139.
  54. Morse BC, Roettger RH, Kalbaugh CA, et al. Abdominal CT scanning in reproductive-age women with right lower quadrant abdominal pain: does its use reduce negative appendectomy rates and healthcare costs? Am Surg 2007; 73:580.
  55. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:141.
  56. Johansson EP, Rydh A, Riklund KA. Ultrasound, computed tomography, and laboratory findings in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Acta Radiol 2007; 48:267.
  57. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Rattner DW, et al. Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg 1999; 229:344.
  58. DeArmond GM, Dent DL, Myers JG, et al. Appendicitis: selective use of abdominal CT reduces negative appendectomy rate. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003; 4:213.
  59. Lin KH, Leung WS, Wang CP, Chen WK. Cost analysis of management in acute appendicitis with CT scanning under a hospital global budgeting scheme. Emerg Med J 2008; 25:149.
  60. Sand M, Bechara FG, Holland-Letz T, et al. Diagnostic value of hyperbilirubinemia as a predictive factor for appendiceal perforation in acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 2009; 198:193.
  61. Colson M, Skinner KA, Dunnington G. High negative appendectomy rates are no longer acceptable. Am J Surg 1997; 174:723.
  62. White JJ, Santillana M, Haller JA Jr. Intensive in-hospital observation: a safe way to decrease unnecessary appendectomy. Am Surg 1975; 41:793.