PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 27, 2000Archives of Internal Medicine204 citations

The Accuracy of Physical Examination to Detect Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

View Full Paper
HFHoward A FinkFLFrank A. LederleCRCraig S. Roth

Key Points

  • To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reliability of abdominal palpation during physical examination for detecting abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).
  • Evaluated 200 subjects aged 51 to 88 years (99 with and 101 without AAA, as determined by previous ultrasound).

Structured PICO

Does physical examination (abdominal palpation) accurately detect abdominal aortic aneurysm compared to ultrasound in adults aged 51-88 years?

P
Population
200 subjects (aged 51-88 years), 99 with and 101 without abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) as determined by previous ultrasound.
I
Intervention
Physical examination of the abdomen (abdominal palpation) by 2 internists.
C
Comparator
Previous ultrasound diagnosis (reference standard).
O
Outcome
Accuracy of abdominal palpation for detecting AAA (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios).

Abdominal palpation has moderate overall sensitivity for detecting AAA, but is highly sensitive for large AAAs in patients without large abdominal girth.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abdominal palpation during physical examination is an important means of detecting abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), but limited information is available on its accuracy. METHODS: Two hundred subjects (aged 51-88 years), 99 with and 101 without AAA as determined by previous ultrasound, each underwent physical examination of the abdomen by 2 internists who were blinded to each other's findings and to the ultrasound diagnosis. RESULTS: The overall accuracy of abdominal palpation for detecting AAA was as follows: sensitivity, 68% (95% confidence interval CI, 60%-76%); specificity, 75% (95% CI, 68%-82%); positive likelihood ratio, 2.7 (95% CI, 2.0-3.6); negative likelihood ratio 0.43 (95% CI, 0.33-0.56). Interobserver pair agreement for AAA vs no AAA between the first and second examinations was 77% (kappa = 0.53). Sensitivity increased with AAA diameter, from 61% for AAAs of 3.0 to 3.9 cm, to 69% for AAAs of 4.0 to 4.9 cm, 72% for AAAs of 4.0 cm or larger, and 82% for AAAs of 5.0 cm or larger. Sensitivity in subjects with an abdominal girth less than 100 cm (40-in waistline) was 91% vs 53% for girth of 100 cm or greater (P<.001). When girth was 100 cm or greater and the aorta was palpable, sensitivity was 82%. When girth was less than 100 cm and the AAA was 5.0 cm or larger, sensitivity was 100% (12 examinations). Factors independently associated with correct examination findings included AAA diameter (odds ratio OR, 1.95 per centimeter increase; 95% CI, 1.06-3.58); abdominal girth (OR, 0.90 per centimeter increase; 95% CI, 0.87-0.94); and the examiner's assessment that the abdomen was not tight (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.17-6.13). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal palpation has only moderate overall sensitivity for detecting AAA, but appears to be highly sensitive for diagnosis of AAAs large enough to warrant elective intervention in patients who do not have a large girth. Abdominal palpation has good sensitivity even in patients with a large girth if the aorta is palpable.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Fink et al. (2000) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1c1674b33628da419d3212https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.160.6.833
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper