Skip to main content
Log in

Quantitating bedside diagnosis

Clinical evaluation of ascites

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lawson JD, Weissbein AS. The puddle sign: an aid in the diagnosis of minimal ascites. N Engl J Med 1959;260:652–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. DeGowin EL, DeGowin RL. Bedside diagnostic examination. 4th ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goldberg BB, Goodman GA, Clearfield HR. Evaluation of ascites by utlrasound. Radiology 1970;96:15–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldberg BB, Clearfield HR, Goodman FA, Morales JO. Ultrasonic determination of ascites. Arch Intern Med 1973;131:217–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Simel DL, Feussner JR, DeLong ER, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable results. Med Decis Making 1987;7:107–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1985;619–20.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987;6:411–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Supported in part by the A. W. Mellon Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simel, D.L., Halvorsen, R.A. & Feussner, J.R. Quantitating bedside diagnosis. J Gen Intern Med 3, 423–428 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02595917

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02595917

Key words

Navigation