[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.175.201.14. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
1.
Gillum  RF Epidemiology of aortic aneurysm in the United States.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;481289- 1298Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Scott  RAPWilson  NMAshton  HAKay  DN Influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 5-year results of a randomized controlled study.  Br J Surg. 1995;821066- 1070Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Kiev  JEckhardt  AKerstein  MD Reliability and accuracy of physical examination in detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms.  Vasc Surg. 1997;31143- 146Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Oboler  SKLaForce  FM The periodic physical examination in asymptomatic adults.  Ann Intern Med. 1989;110214- 226Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Frame  PSFryback  DGPatterson  C Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in men ages 60 to 80 years: a cost-effectiveness analysis.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;119411- 416Google ScholarCrossref
6.
Lederle  FASimel  DL Does this patient have abdominal aortic aneurysm?  JAMA. 1999;28177- 82Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Lederle  FAWalker  JMReinke  DB Selective screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms with physical examination and ultrasound.  Arch Intern Med. 1988;1481753- 1756Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Fleiss  JL Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY John Wiley & Sons Inc1981;212- 236
9.
Berry  DALindgren  BW Statistics: Theory and Methods. 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif Wadsworth Publishing Co1996;205- 208339- 347
10.
Liang  KYZeger  SL Longtitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.  Biometrika. 1986;7313- 22Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Lofgren  RP The dynamic nature of sensitivity and specificity.  J Gen Intern Med. 1987;2452- 453Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Fowkes  FGR Diagnostic vigilance.  Lancet. 1986;1493- 494Google ScholarCrossref
13.
The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants, Mortality results for randomised controlled trial of early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms.  Lancet. 1998;3521649- 1655Google ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
March 27, 2000

The Accuracy of Physical Examination to Detect Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine and Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):833-836. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.6.833
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% (κ = 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.

×