Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 3, Issue 5, pp 423–428 | Cite as

Quantitating bedside diagnosis

Clinical evaluation of ascites
  • David L. Simel
  • Robert A. HalvorsenJr.
  • John R. Feussner
Original Articles

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.

Key words

clinical diagnosis ascites bias 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lawson JD, Weissbein AS. The puddle sign: an aid in the diagnosis of minimal ascites. N Engl J Med 1959;260:652–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cattau EL, Benjamin SB, Knuff TE, Castell DO. The accuracy of the physical examination in the diagnosis of suspected ascites. JAMA 1982;247:1164–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cummings S, Papadakis M, Melnick J, Gooding GAW, Tierney LM. The predictive value of physical examinations for ascites. West J Med 1985;142:633–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeGowin EL, DeGowin RL. Bedside diagnostic examination. 4th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neff CC, Simeone JE, Ferrucci JT, Mueller PR, et al. The occurrence of fluid collections following routine abdominal surgical procedures. Radiology 1983;146:463–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg BB, Goodman GA, Clearfield HR. Evaluation of ascites by utlrasound. Radiology 1970;96:15–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldberg BB, Clearfield HR, Goodman FA, Morales JO. Ultrasonic determination of ascites. Arch Intern Med 1973;131:217–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simel DL, Feussner JR, DeLong ER, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable results. Med Decis Making 1987;7:107–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1985;619–20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987;6:411–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenes RA, Begg CB. Assessment of diagnostic technologies: methodology for unbiased estimation from samples of selectively verified patients. Invest Radiol 1985;20:751–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© the Society of General Internal Medicine 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Simel
    • 1
  • Robert A. HalvorsenJr.
    • 2
  • John R. Feussner
    • 1
  1. 1.the Health Services Research Field Program, Durham Veterans’ Administration Medical Center, Division of General Internal MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurham
  2. 2.the Department of RadiologyDurham Veterans’ Administration Medical CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations