Misdiagnoses of Appendicitis on the Rise

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Appendectomy ranks among the most common surgical procedures in the U.S. But in a surprising number of cases¿an estimated 40,000 a year¿the removed appendix is not actually infected. In fact, according to a report appearing today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the rate of misdiagnosis of appendicitis is increasing¿despite the availability of improved tests. Such misdiagnoses translate to more than $700 million dollars a year in hospitalization costs and can leave patients with unnecessary post-operative complications.

Inflammation of the appendix is understandably difficult to identify. The tiny organ itself lies hidden behind the colon, and the characteristic pain, loss of appetite and nausea can stem from other maladies. For example, in men an inflamed lymph node or intestinal tract infection can cause these symptoms, whereas in women the source may be infection of the uterus or ovary. In recent years, however, researchers have developed a number of diagnostic tests based on computed tomography, ultrasound, laparoscopy and other techniques that are purportedly effective detectors of appendicitis. Yet the new study, led by David Flum of the University of Washington, indicates that between 1987 and 1998¿a time when the improved tests were becoming more widely available¿the rate of misdiagnosis among patients older than 65 shot up by eight percent a year and among women of childbearing age, it climbed by one percent a year. (Overall, appendicitis misdiagnosis has remained at 15 percent.) Today, nearly a quarter of all appendectomies performed on women of childbearing age remove healthy appendices.

"It's very striking to have such a contrast between published reports of how good these tests are and this new population-based evidence that they are not making a big impact," Flum observes. One possible explanation is that the results may not come quickly enough. "When you are suspicious that someone has appendicitis, you don't want to be wrong and leave the appendix in. Untreated appendicitis can lead to rupture and even more complications, so many surgeons prefer to take it out even if it looks normal at the time of the operation," he notes. Whatever the reason, Flum remarks, "the promise of this new diagnostic technology has not been realized. We need to conduct more studies to determine what is going on when these new technologies are applied around the country

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe