ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2022
Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in an academic family practice: Short-term impact of guideline changes.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global, regional, and temporal trends in aortic aneurysm burden, 1990-2021: insights from the Global Burden of Disease study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Validation of Family Medicine Point-of-Care Ultrasound Screening (POCUS) for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Observational
- Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening rates in the 6 months before and after the introduction of updated Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) guidelines to determine effects on practice patterns, as well as to determine whether certain patient characteristics impact AAA screening rates.
designRetrospective chart review.
settingAcademic family health centre in London, Ont.
participantsMale patients between the ages of 65 and 80.
main outcome measuresScreening rates for AAA before and after the guideline update were compared using the normal approximation of the binomial distribution. Analysis of demographic characteristic effects on screening rates was completed with the Fisher exact test. Number of visits to the clinic with a primary care provider within the study period and imaging type were collected.
resultsOf the 266 patients included in the study, 160 patients were eligible for screening at the start of the study period, 6 months before publication of the CTFPHC AAA guideline. Individuals eligible for screening visited the clinic an average (SD) of 2.44 (1.82) times in the 6 months before and 2.66 (1.99) times in the 6 months after. Overall, 69 individuals had AAA screening completed and 9 had a discussion of AAA screening without any imaging, for a total uptake rate of 88.5% for those who had screening recommended. The overall imaging rate was 48.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in screening rates between the time periods (
conclusionScreening practices did not change appreciably with the introduction of the CTFPHC AAA screening guidelines. Further research is needed to improve AAA screening rates. It is worth exploring electronic medical record-based reminders, nursing staff involvement in screening, screening programs via public health, and point-of-care ultrasound screening in a primary care setting.
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.