This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (8)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • The Rational Clinical Examination  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic

Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD; Edward E. Etchells, MD, MSc

JAMA. 1999;281:2231-2238.

Objective  To review evidence as to the precision and accuracy of clinical examination for aortic regurgitation (AR).

Methods  We conducted a structured MEDLINE search of English-language articles (January 1966-July 1997), manually reviewed all reference lists of potentially relevant articles, and contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information. Each study (n = 16) was independently reviewed by both authors and graded for methodological quality.

Results  Most studies assessed cardiologists as examiners. Cardiologists' precision for detecting diastolic murmurs was moderate using audiotapes (=0.51) and was good in the clinical setting (simple agreement, 94%). The most useful finding for ruling in AR is the presence of an early diastolic murmur (positive likelihood ratio [LR], 8.8-32.0 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.8-32 to 16-63] for detecting mild or greater AR and 4.0-8.3 [95% CI, 2.5-6.9 to 6.2-11] for detecting moderate or greater AR) (2 grade A studies). The most useful finding for ruling out AR is the absence of early diastolic murmur (negative LR, 0.2-0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.3 to 0.2-0.4) for mild or greater AR and 0.1 [95% CI, 0.0-0.3] for moderate or greater AR) (2 grade A studies). Except for a test evaluating the response to transient arterial occlusion (positive LR, 8.4 [95% CI, 1.3-81.0]; negative LR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.8]), most signs display poor sensitivity and specificity for AR.

Conclusion  Clinical examination by cardiologists is accurate for detecting AR, but not enough is known about the examinations of less-expert clinicians.

Author Affiliations: Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto and the University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario.

RELATED ARTICLE

June 16, 1999
JAMA. ;281():2257-2258.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Does This Patient With a Pericardial Effusion Have Cardiac Tamponade?
Roy et al.
JAMA 2007;297:1810-1818.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Does This Dyspneic Patient in the Emergency Department Have Congestive Heart Failure?
Wang et al.
JAMA 2005;294:1944-1956.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Eponyms and the Diagnosis of Aortic Regurgitation: What Says the Evidence?
Babu et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;138:736-742.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Does This Patient Have an Acute Thoracic Aortic Dissection?
Klompas
JAMA 2002;287:2262-2272.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Lost Art of Auscultation
Marcus
Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2396-2396.
FULL TEXT