Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 529

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm

Open access
Norman, Paul E, Jamrozik, Konrad, Lawrence-Brown, Michael M, Le, Max T Q, Spencer, Carole A, Tuohy, Raywin J, Parsons, Richard W, Dickinson, James A·2004·BMJ

Abstract

Objective To assess whether screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in men reduces mortality. Design Population based randomised controlled trial of ultrasound screening, with intention to treat analysis of age standardised mortality. Setting Community based screening programme in Western Australia. Participants 41 000 men aged 65-83 years randomised to intervention and control groups. Intervention Invitation to ultrasound screening. Main outcome measure Deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm in the five years after the start of screening. Results The corrected response to invitation to screening was 70%. The crude prevalence was 7.2% for aortic diameter ≥ 30 mm and 0.5% for diameter ≥ 55 mm. Twice as many men in the intervention group than in the control group underwent elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (107 v 54, P = 0.002, χ 2 test). Between scheduled screening and the end of follow up 18 men in the intervention group and 25 in the control group died from abdominal aortic aneurysm, yielding a mortality ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 1.11). Any benefit was almost entirely in men aged between 65 and 75 years, where the ratio was reduced to 0.19 (0.04 to 0.89). Conclusions At a whole population level screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms was not effective in men aged 65-83 years and did not reduce overall death rates. The success of screening depends on choice of target age group and the exclusion of ineligible men. It is also important to assess the current rate of elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm as in some communities this may already approach a level that reduces the potential benefit of population based screening.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.329.7477.1259

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.

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

Cited by

See all 529

Metadata

Authors
Norman, P. E., Jamrozik, K., Lawrence-Brown, M. M., Le, M. T. Q., Spencer, C. A., Tuohy, R. J., Parsons, R. W., & Dickinson, J. A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-11-15
Volume
329
Issue
7477
Pages
1259
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2147234975
Cited by
529
References
0
FWCI
16.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.329.7477.1259
The paper
Norman, P. E., Jamrozik, K., Lawrence-Brown, M. M., Le, M. T. Q., Spencer, C. A., Tuohy, R. J., Parsons, R. W., & Dickinson, J. A. (2004). Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7477.1259

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.