Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19553269›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

Screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm: 10 year mortality and cost effectiveness results from the randomised Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study.

S G Thompson, H A Ashton, L Gao, R A P Scott, Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study Group

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Recommendations on screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in primary care.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017
    Guideline
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Prediction model for aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm, and peripheral artery disease.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

S G ThompsonMRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 0SR. simon.thompson@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk
H A Ashton
L Gao
R A P Scott
Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study Group

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601031Medical Research Council U.1052.00.001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether the mortality benefit from screening men aged 65-74 for abdominal aortic aneurysm decreases over time, and to estimate the long term cost effectiveness of screening.

designRandomised trial with 10 years of follow-up.

settingFour centres in the UK. Screening and surveillance was delivered mainly in primary care settings, with follow-up and surgery offered in hospitals.

participantsPopulation based sample of 67 770 men aged 65-74.

interventionsParticipants were individually allocated to invitation to ultrasound screening (invited group) or to a control group not offered screening. Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm detected at screening underwent surveillance and were offered surgery if they met predefined criteria.

main outcome measuresMortality and costs related to abdominal aortic aneurysm, and cost per life year gained.

resultsOver 10 years 155 deaths related to abdominal aortic aneurysm (absolute risk 0.46%) occurred in the invited group and 296 (0.87%) in the control group (relative risk reduction 48%, 95% confidence interval 37% to 57%). The degree of benefit seen in earlier years of follow-up was maintained in later years. Based on the 10 year trial data, the incremental cost per man invited to screening was pound100 (95% confidence interval pound82 to pound118), leading to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of pound7600 ( pound5100 to pound13,000) per life year gained. However, the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in those originally screened as normal increased noticeably after eight years.

conclusionsThe mortality benefit of screening men aged 65-74 for abdominal aortic aneurysm is maintained up to 10 years and cost effectiveness becomes more favourable over time. To maximise the benefit from a screening programme, emphasis should be placed on achieving a high initial rate of attendance and good adherence to clinical follow-up, preventing delays in undertaking surgery, and maintaining a low operative mortality after elective surgery. On the basis of current evidence, rescreening of those originally screened as normal is not justified. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37381646.

Indexed as

AgedAortic Aneurysm, AbdominalAortic RuptureCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningRisk FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID19553269
PMCPMC3272658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.