Literature DB >> 3049966

Quantitating bedside diagnosis: clinical evaluation of ascites.

D L Simel1, R A Halvorsen, J R Feussner.   

Abstract

The authors prospectively evaluated the operating characteristics of the history and physical examination for ascites in a broad spectrum of hospitalized patients. The overall clinical evaluation produced a positive likelihood ratio = 37.7-83.3 when suggestive of ascites, a likelihood ratio = 2.23-3.42 when intermediate, and a negative likelihood ratio = 0.77-0.90 when not suggestive of ascites. Patients' perceptions of increased abdominal girth (positive likelihood ratio = 4.16) or recent weight gain (positive likelihood ratio = 3.20) increased the likelihood of ascites. The absence of subjective ankle swelling (negative likelihood ratio = 0.10) or increased abdominal girth (negative likelihood ratio = 0.17) decreased the likelihood of ascites. The positive likelihood ratios for a fluid wave = 9.6 and shifting dullness = 5.76 favored ascites, while the absence of bulging flanks (negative likelihood ratio = 0.12) or peripheral edema (negative likelihood ratio = 0.17) favored ascites the least. Thus, a routine history and physical examination are quantitatively useful in the clinical evaluation of ascites.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3049966     DOI: 10.1007/BF02595917

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  9 in total

1.  [The puddle sign; an aid in the diagnosis of minimal ascites].

Authors:  J D LAWSON; A S WEISSBEIN
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1959-03-26       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  C B Begg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Ultrasonic determination of ascites.

Authors:  B B Goldberg; H R Clearfield; G A Goodman; J O Morales
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1973-02

4.  Evaluation of ascites by ultrasound.

Authors:  B B Goldberg; G A Goodman; H R Clearfield
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1970-07       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results.

Authors:  D L Simel; J R Feussner; E R DeLong; D B Matchar
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1987 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Assessment of diagnostic technologies. Methodology for unbiased estimation from samples of selectively verified patients.

Authors:  R A Greenes; C B Begg
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  The occurrence of fluid collections following routine abdominal surgical procedures: sonographic survey in asymptomatic postoperative patients.

Authors:  C C Neff; J F Simeone; J T Ferrucci; P R Mueller; J Wittenberg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  The accuracy of the physical examination in the diagnosis of suspected ascites.

Authors:  E L Cattau; S B Benjamin; T E Knuff; D O Castell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-02-26       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The predictive value of physical examinations for ascites.

Authors:  S Cummings; M Papadakis; J Melnick; G A Gooding; L M Tierney
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1985-05
  9 in total
  6 in total

1.  Simplifying likelihood ratios.

Authors:  Steven McGee
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Ruling a diagnosis in or out with "SpPIn" and "SnNOut": a note of caution.

Authors:  Daniel Pewsner; Markus Battaglia; Christoph Minder; Arthur Marx; Heiner C Bucher; Matthias Egger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-24

3.  85-year-old man with epistaxis.

Authors:  Matthew J Butts; Joseph H Skalski; Christopher M Wittich
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Methodologic standards for diagnostic test assessment studies.

Authors:  C B Begg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  The STARD statement for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: application to the history and physical examination.

Authors:  David L Simel; Drummond Rennie; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Iron deficiency anemia in the elderly: the diagnostic process.

Authors:  C Patterson; G H Guyatt; J Singer; M Ali; I Turpie
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1991-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.