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  • Cardiovascular System  • The Rational Clinical Examination  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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.

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

RELATED ARTICLE

June 16, 1999
JAMA. 1999;281(23):2257-2258.
EXTRACT | 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