This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

FRANK A. LEDERLE, MD
Minneapolis, Minn

Arch Intern Med. 1990;150(12):2592.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—Beede and colleagues¹ state that their data on the positive— predictive value of the clinical assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) "indicate that screening for AAAs in routine clinical practice based on clinical assessment of AAAs may be much less cost-effective than proposed" by us² and by others.³ This statement can be challenged on several grounds.

First, because of the retrospective nature of the study, there could be no specific criteria for a "clinical assessment" of AAA. The authors note that normal aortic pulsation in thin persons was probably a frequent reason for ultrasound. In contrast, our study² confirmed the dictum of Osler⁴ that only an enlarged aortic pulsation should be considered clinical evidence of AAA. The positive-predictive value of an ill-defined clinical assessment should not be compared with the positive-predictive value that we reported for a pulsatile mass. Referral based on . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?