The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Prediction of Acute Aortic Dissection
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical criteria for aortic dissection are poorly defined. Thus, 35% of aortic dissections remain unsuspected in vivo, and 99% of suspected cases can be refuted. OBJECTIVE: To identify independent predictors of acute aortic dissection and create a prediction model for facilitated estimation of the individual risk of dissection. METHODS: Two hundred fifty patients with acute chest pain, back pain, or both; absence of an established differential diagnosis of the pain syndrome; and clinical suspicion of acute aortic dissection were evaluated for the presence of 26 clinical variables in a prospective, observational study. Multivariate analysis was performed to create a prediction model of aortic dissection. RESULTS: Aortic pain with immediate onset, a tearing or ripping character, or both; mediastinal widening, aortic widening, or both on chest radiography; and pulse differentials, blood pressure differentials, or both (P<.001 for all) were identified as independent predictors of acute aortic dissection. Probability of dissection was low with absence of all 3 variables (7%), intermediate with isolated findings of aortic pain or mediastinal widening (31% and 39%, respectively), and high with isolated pulse or blood pressure differentials or any combination of the 3 variables (> or = 83%). Accordingly, 4% of all dissections were assigned to the low-probability group, 19% to the intermediate-probability group, and 77% to the high-probability group of aortic dissection. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of 3 clinical variables permitted identification of 96% of the acute aortic dissections and stratification into high-, intermediate-, and low-probability groupings of disease. With better selection for prompt diagnostic imaging, this prediction model can be used as an aid to improve patient care in aortic dissection. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2977-2982
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Presentation, Diagnosis, and Outcomes of Acute Aortic Dissection
Pape, L. A., Awais, M., Woznicki, E. M., Suzuki, T., Trimarchi, S., Evangelista, A., Myrmel, T., Larsen, M., Harris, K. M., Greason, K., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.05.029 · Cited by 1,085
Self-citationOverconfidence as a Cause of Diagnostic Error in Medicine
Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L. (2008) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001 · Cited by 1,034
Goldstein, S. A., Evangelista, A., Abbara, S., Arai, A., Asch, F. M., Badano, L. P., Bolen, M. A., Connolly, H. M., Cuéllar-Calàbria, H., Czerny, M., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2014.11.015 · Cited by 641
Self-citationThe incidence of diagnostic error in medicine
Graber, M. L. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001615 · Cited by 626
Does This Patient Have an Acute Thoracic Aortic Dissection?
Klompas, M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.17.2262 · Cited by 369
Metadata
- Authors
- von Kodolitsch, Y., Schwartz, A. G., & Nienaber, C. A.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-10-23
- Volume
- 160
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2977
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057363015
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Prediction of Acute Aortic Dissection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.160.19.2977
- The paper
- von Kodolitsch, Y., Schwartz, A. G., & Nienaber, C. A. (2000). Clinical Prediction of Acute Aortic Dissection. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.160.19.2977
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.