The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does This Patient Have Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm?
Abstract
In the physical examination of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), the only maneuver of demonstrated value is abdominal palpation to detect abnormal widening of the aortic pulsation. Palpation of AAA appears to be safe and has not been reported to precipitate rupture. The best evidence on the accuracy of abdominal palpation comes from 15 studies of patients not previously known to have AAA who were screened with both abdominal palpation and ultrasound. When results from these studies are pooled, the sensitivity of abdominal palpation increases significantly with AAA diameter (P<.001), ranging from 29% for AAAs of 3.0 to 3.9 cm to 50% for AAAs of 4.0 to 4.9 cm and 76% for AAAs of 5.0 cm or greater. Positive and negative likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a cutoff point for AAAs of 3.0 cm or greater are 12.0 (95% CI, 7.4-19.5) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.81), respectively, and for AAAs of 4.0 cm or greater are 15.6 (95% CI, 8.6-28.5) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.38-0.67). The positive predictive value of palpation for AAA of 3.0 cm or greater in these studies was 43%. Limited data suggest that abdominal obesity decreases the sensitivity of palpation. Abdominal palpation specifically directed at measuring aortic width has moderate sensitivity for detecting an AAA that would be large enough to be referred for surgery but cannot be relied on to exclude AAA, especially if rupture is a possibility.
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
Cites
Likelihood ratios with confidence: Sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies
Simel, D. L., Samsa, G. P., & Matchar, D. B. (1991) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90128-v · Cited by 932 · cited 1×
“Does this patient have abdominal aortic aneurysm? JAMA 1999; 281(1): 77-82”
Background
Cited by
Hirsch, A. T., Haskal, Z. J., Hertzer, N. R., Bakal, C. W., Creager, M. A., Halperin, J. L., Hiratzka, L. F., Murphy, W. R. C., Olin, J. W., Puschett, J. B., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.174526 · Cited by 3,708
Does This Dyspneic Patient in the Emergency Department Have Congestive Heart Failure?
Wang, C. S. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.15.1944 · Cited by 593
Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence
Leeflang, M. M. G., Rutjes, A. W. S., Reitsma, J. B., Hooft, L., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2013) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.121286 · Cited by 530
Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Owens, D. K., Davidson, K. W., Krist, A. H., Barry, M. J., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Doubeni, C. A., Epling, J. W., Kubik, M., et al. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.18928 · Cited by 373
Why clinicians are natural bayesians
Gill, C. J., Sabin, L., & Schmid, C. H. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1080 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Lederle, F. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1999-01-06
- Volume
- 281
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2084809908
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.41
- 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: Does This Patient Have Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.281.1.77
- The paper
- Lederle, F. A. (1999). Does This Patient Have Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.1.77
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.