ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Family screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Family screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: International guidelines recommend screening of first-degree relatives of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the prevalence of AAA amongst screened relatives is uncertain. Methods: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 4 March 2026 for studies screening relatives of patients with AAA. Data were analysed using a random-effects model meta-analysis in Stata. Risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool for prevalence studies. Evidence quality was assessed using GRADE. Aims and analyses to be performed were pre-specified and recorded with PROSPERO: CRD42024566370. Findings: Twenty-six studies were included with 4166 AAA index patients and 4530 screened relatives, providing moderate-certainty evidence. The prevalence of AAA amongst relatives overall was 14.4% (95% CI 10.7%-18.4%) (24 studies), 21.9% (95% CI 15.9%-28.6%) in male relatives (19 studies), and 6.3% (95% CI 3.6%-9.5%) in female relatives (17 studies). The prevalence of familial AAA, where AAA index patients had at least one affected relative, was 16.9% (95% CI 12.7%-21.6%) (13 studies). The odds of finding an AAA amongst male relatives was about 4 times greater than in female relatives (OR 3.69, 95% CI 2.89-4.71). Screened female relatives had a 5 times greater risk of having AAA compared to age- and sex-matched controls, whereas the comparable figure for male relatives was about 3. The risk of bias was low for all studies. Interpretation: Relatives of patients with AAA are a highly enriched population for AAA, occurring in 1 in 5 males and 1 in 16 females, with 1 in 6 AAA index patients having at least one affected relative. These findings support screening strategies that encompass all first-degree relatives, both male and female, irrespective of reported family history in the AAA index patient. Funding: None.
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.