sensitivity and specificity

Does This Patient Have Volume Overload?: The Rational Clinical Examination

Author/s: 
Benjamin Drum, Bryce La Course, Mark Kelly

Importance Accurate assessment of intravascular volume facilitates management decisions about fluid management in patients with volume overload.

Objective To identify the most accurate clinical examination, radiographic, and laboratory findings for assessing volume overload in nonintubated patients.

Data Sources and Study Selection MEDLINE was searched (1946 to January 6, 2026) to identify peer-reviewed English-language studies about the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination of spontaneously breathing patients with intravascular volume overload.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Three authors independently extracted data for each finding and calculated sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs). A 2-level mixed logistic regression model was used to pool estimates.

Results Forty studies, involving 11 490 adult patients, were included, with a prevalence of volume overload of 35% to 69%. Thirty-three of those studies evaluated patients with dyspnea. Prevalence of volume overload was more likely when the physical examination revealed jugular venous distention with the highest point of pulsation more than 3 cm in a vertical line above the sternal angle (LR, 4.1 [95% CI, 2.9-5.6]; specificity, 92%), lower extremity edema (LR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.5-3.1]; specificity, 80%), or crackles on auscultation (LR, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.7-4.5]; specificity, 81%). Vascular congestion on chest radiography increased the likelihood of intravascular volume overload (LR, 5.9 [95% CI, 2.9-12.0]; specificity, 91%). Point-of-care ultrasonography that identified bilateral pulmonary B-lines suggested volume overload (LR, 4.0 [95% CI, 2.6-6.1]; specificity, 77%), and absence of pulmonary B-lines made volume overload unlikely (LR, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.04-0.23]; sensitivity, 93%). Inferior vena cava collapsibility index of less than 50% increased the likelihood of volume overload (LR, 3.9 [95% CI, 2.5-6.1]; specificity, 79%), and a collapsibility index of at least 50% made it less likely (LR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.11-0.45]; sensitivity, 82%). Point-of-care ultrasonographic measurement of jugular venous pressure (JVP; >8 cm) also increased the likelihood of volume overload (LR, 2.8 [95% CI, 2.2-3.5]; specificity, 71%), although JVP of 8 cm or less identified patients less likely to have volume overload (LR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.20-0.33]; sensitivity, 81%). A plasma brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level of 100 ng/mL or higher was the single best test to identify those most likely to have volume overload (LR, 6.9 [95% CI, 2.4-20.4]; specificity, 87%), and a normal value made it less likely (LR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.08-0.24]; sensitivity, 87%).

Conclusions and Relevance A BNP level of 100 ng/mL or higher and presence of vascular congestion on chest radiography may be the most useful tests to identify patients with volume overload. Absence of pulmonary B-lines using point-of-care ultrasonography or BNP levels of less than 100 ng/mL may be most useful to exclude volume overload.

Diagnosis of Celiac Disease: Current State of the Evidence

Author/s: 
John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science

This is a summary of a systematic review evaluating the evidence regarding the comparative accuracy (the balance of sensitivity and specificity) and possible adverse consequences (both direct and indirect) of various methods used to diagnose celiac disease. The systematic review included 60 individual studies and 13 previous systematic reviews published from January 1990 through March 2015. The full report, listing all studies and reviews, is available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/celiac-disease. This summary is provided to assist in informed clinical decisionmaking. However, reviews of evidence should not be construed to represent clinical recommendations or guidelines.

Subscribe to sensitivity and specificity