ArticleBMJ open2019
Retrospective review of abdominal aortic aneurysm deaths in New Zealand: what proportion of deaths is potentially preventable by a screening programme in the contemporary setting?
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of radiological information system data in Clinical Portal database to screen for missed abdominal aortic aneurysms.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- Screening Older Adult Men for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Scoping Review.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the proportions of people dying from abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who might have benefited from a formal screening programme for AAA.
designRetrospective cross-sectional review of deaths. SETTING AND STUDY POPULATIONS: All AAA deaths registered in New Zealand from 2010 to 2014 in the absence of a national AAA screening programme.
main outcome measuresKnown history of AAA prior to the acute event leading to AAA death, prognosis limiting comorbidities, history of prior abdominal imaging and a validated multimorbidity measure (M3-index scores).
results1094 AAA deaths were registered in the 5 years between 2010 and 2014 in New Zealand. Prior to the acute AAA event resulting in death, 31.3% of the cohort had a known AAA diagnosis, and 10.9% had a previous AAA procedure. On average, the AAA diagnosis was known 3.7 years prior to death. At least 77% of the people dying from AAA also had one or more other prognosis limiting diagnosis. The hazard of 1-year mortality associated with the non-AAA related comorbidities for the AAA cohort aged 65 or above were 1.5-2.6 times higher than to the age matched general population based on M3-index scores. In 2014, overall AAA deaths accounted for only 0.7% of total deaths, and 1.0% of deaths among men aged 65 or above in New Zealand. At most, 20% of people dying from AAA in New Zealand between 2010 and 2014 might have had the potential to derive full benefit from a screening programme. About 51% of cases would have derived no or very limited benefit from a screening programme.
conclusionFalling AAA mortality, and high prevalence of competing comorbidities and/or prior AAA diagnosis and procedure raises the question about the likely value of a national AAA screening programme in a country such as New Zealand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.