Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does This Patient Have an Acute Thoracic Aortic Dissection?

Klompas, Michael·2002·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection is difficult to make and often missed. OBJECTIVE: To review the accuracy of clinical history taking, physical examination, and plain chest radiograph in the diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive review of the English-language literature was conducted using MEDLINE for the years 1966 through 2000. Additional sources were identified from the references of retrieved articles. STUDY SELECTION: The search revealed 274 potential sources, which were reviewed for pertinence and quality. Articles included were original investigations describing the clinical findings for 18 or more consecutive patients with confirmed thoracic aortic dissection. Twenty-one studies were identified that met selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Critical appraisal and data extraction were performed by the author. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most patients with thoracic aortic dissection have severe pain (pooled sensitivity, 90%) of sudden onset (sensitivity, 84%). The absence of sudden pain onset lowers the likelihood of dissection (negative likelihood ratio [LR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.5). On examination, 49% of patients have an elevated blood pressure, 28% have a diastolic murmur, 31% have pulse deficits or blood pressure differentials, and 17% have focal neurological deficits. Presence of a diastolic murmur does little to change the pretest probability of dissection (positive LR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0), whereas pulse or blood pressure differentials and neurological deficits increase the likelihood of disease (positive LRs, 5.7 and 6.6-33.0, respectively). The plain chest radiograph results are usually abnormal (sensitivity, 90%); hence, the presence of a normal aorta and mediastinum decreases the probability of dissection (negative LR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4). Combinations of findings increase the likelihood of disease. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of pulse deficits or focal neurological deficits increases the likelihood of an acute thoracic aortic dissection in the appropriate clinical setting. Conversely, a completely normal chest radiograph result or the absence of pain of sudden onset lowers the likelihood. Overall, however, the clinical examination is insufficiently sensitive to rule out aortic dissection given the high morbidity of missed diagnosis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.287.17.2262

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Klompas, M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2002-05-01
Volume
287
Issue
17
Pages
2262
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2144966205
Cited by
369
References
19
FWCI
7.56
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 an Acute Thoracic Aortic Dissection? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.287.17.2262
The paper
Klompas, M. (2002). Does This Patient Have an Acute Thoracic Aortic Dissection? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.17.2262

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.