Summary of

Recommendations

The USPSTF recommends one-time screening

for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by

ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 who have

ever smoked. B recommendation.

The USPSTF found good evidence that screening

for AAA and surgical repair of large AAAs (5.5 cm or

more) in men aged 65 to 75 who have ever smoked

(current and former smokers) leads to decreased AAAspecific mortality. There is good evidence that

abdominal ultrasonography, performed in a setting

with adequate quality assurance (ie, in an accredited

facility with credentialed technologists), is an accurate

screening test for AAA. There is also good evidence of

important harms of screening and early treatment,

including an increased number of surgeries with

associated clinically significant morbidity and

mortality, and short-term psychological harms. Based

on the moderate magnitude of net benefit, the

USPSTF concluded that the benefits of screening for

AAA in men aged 65 to 75 who have ever smoked

outweigh the harms. 

The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or

against screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75

who have never smoked. C recommendation.

The USPSTF found good evidence that screening

for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 who have never

smoked leads to decreased AAA-specific mortality.

There is, however, a lower prevalence of large AAAs in

men who have never smoked compared with men who

have ever smoked; thus, the potential benefit from

screening men who have never smoked is small. There

is good evidence that screening and early treatment

lead to important harms, including an increased

This statement summarizes the U.S.

Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)

recommendations on screening for abdominal

aortic aneurysm (AAA) and the supporting

scientific evidence, and updates the 1996

recommendations contained in the Guide to

Clinical Preventive Services, second edition.1

Explanations of the ratings and of the strength

of overall evidence are given in Appendix A 

and Appendix B, respectively. The complete

information on which this statement is based,

including evidence tables and references, is

included in the summary of evidence,2 evidence

synthesis,3 and in the cost-effectiveness analyses

review4 on this topic, available on the USPSTF

Web site (www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov). 

The recommendation statement, summary of

evidence, and cost-effectiveness analyses review

are also available in print from the Agency 

for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Publications Clearinghouse (call 1-800-358-

9295, or e-mail ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov). The

recommendation is also posted on the Web site

of the National Guideline ClearinghouseTM

(www.guideline.gov).

Recommendations made by the USPSTF are

independent of the U.S. Government. They

should not be construed as an official position

of AHRQ or the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

This recommendation statement was first

published in Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:

198–202.

Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Recommendation Statement

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

1

Corresponding Author: Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, Chair, U.S.

Preventive Services Task Force, c/o Program Director, USPSTF,

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road,

Rockville, MD 20850, e-mail: uspstf@ahrq.gov.
2

Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: USPSTF Recommendations

number of surgeries with associated clinically

significant morbidity and mortality, and short-term

psychological harms. The USPSTF concluded that the

balance between the benefits and harms of screening

for AAA is too close to make a general recommendation

in this population. 

The USPSTF recommends against routine

screening for AAA in women. D recommendation.

Because of the low prevalence of large AAAs in

women, the number of AAA-related deaths that can be

prevented by screening this population is small. There is

good evidence that screening and early treatment result

in important harms, including an increased number of

surgeries with associated morbidity and mortality, and

psychological harms. The USPSTF concluded that the

harms of screening women for AAA outweigh the

benefits.

Clinical Considerations

• The major risk factors for AAA include age

(being 65 or older), male sex, and a history of

ever smoking (at least 100 cigarettes in a person’s

lifetime). A first-degree family history of AAA

requiring surgical repair also elevates a man’s risk

for AAA; this may also be true for women but

the evidence is less certain. There is only a

modest association between risk factors for

atherosclerotic disease and AAA.

• Screening for AAA would most benefit those who

have a reasonably high probability of having an

AAA large enough, or that will become large

enough, to benefit from surgery. In general,

adults younger than age 65 and adults of any age

who have never smoked are at low risk for AAA

and are not likely to benefit from screening.

Among men aged 65 to 74, an estimated 500

who have ever smoked—or 1,783 who have

never smoked—would need to be screened to

prevent 1 AAA-related death in the next 5 years.

As always, clinicians must individualize

recommendations depending on a patient’s risk

and likelihood of benefit. For example, some

clinicians may choose to discuss screening with

male nonsmokers nearing age 65 who have a

strong first-degree family history of AAA that

required surgery.

• The potential benefit of screening for AAA

among women aged 65 to 75 is low because of

the small number of AAA-related deaths in this

population. The majority of deaths from AAA

rupture occur in women aged 80 or older.

Because there are many competing health risks at

this age, any benefit of screening for AAA would

be minimal. Individualization of care, however, is

still required. For example, a clinician may

choose to discuss screening in the unusual

circumstance in which a healthy female smoker

in her early 70s has a first-degree family history

for AAA that required surgery.

• Operative mortality for open surgical repair of 

an AAA is 4% to 5%, and nearly one-third of

patients undergoing this surgery have other

important complications (eg, cardiac and

pulmonary). Additionally, men having this

surgery are at increased risk for impotence.

• Endovascular repair of AAAs (EVAR) is

currently being used as an alternative to open

surgical repair. Although recent studies have

shown a short-term mortality and morbidity

benefit of EVAR compared with open surgical

repair, the long-term effectiveness of EVAR to

reduce AAA rupture and mortality is unknown.

The long-term harms of EVAR include late

conversion to open repair and aneurysmal

rupture. EVAR performed with older-generation

devices is reported to have an annual rate of

rupture of 1% and conversion to open surgical

repair of 2%. The conversion to open surgical

repair is associated with a peri-operative

mortality of about 24%. The long-term harms

of newer generation EVAR devices are yet to be

reported.

• For most men, 75 years may be considered an

upper age limit for screening. Patients cannot

benefit from screening and subsequent surgery

unless they have a reasonable life expectancy. The

increased presence of comorbidities for people

aged 75 and older decreases the likelihood that

they will benefit from screening. 

• Ultrasonography has a sensitivity of 95% and

specificity of nearly 100% when performed in 

a setting with adequate quality assurance. The
3

Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: USPSTF Recommendations

absence of quality assurance is likely to lower test

accuracy. Abdominal palpation has poor accuracy

and is not an adequate screening test.

• One-time screening to detect an AAA using

ultrasonography is sufficient. There is negligible

health benefit in re-screening those who have

normal aortic diameter on initial screening.

• Open surgical repair for an AAA of at least 5.5

cm leads to an estimated 43% reduction in

AAA-specific mortality in older men who

undergo screening. However, there is no current

evidence that screening reduces all-cause

mortality in this population.

• In men with intermediate-sized AAAs (4.0–5.4

cm), periodic surveillance offers comparable

mortality benefit to routine elective surgery with

the benefit of fewer operations. Although there is

no evidence to support the effectiveness of any

intervention in those with small AAAs (3.0–3.9

cm), there are expert opinion-based

recommendations in favor of periodic repeat

ultrasonography for these patients.

Discussion

By definition, an AAA is present when the

infrarenal aortic diameter exceeds 3.0 cm.5 Large

AAAs are associated with approximately 9,000

deaths annually in the United States.6 The

prevalence of AAAs found in population-based

ultrasonography screening studies from various

countries is about 4% to 9% in men and 1% in

women.7–12 The prevalence of an AAA greater than

5.0 cm in men aged 50 to 79 is estimated to be

0.5%.13 Almost all deaths from ruptured AAAs

occur in men older than 65; most AAA-related

deaths occur in men younger than 80; and most

AAA-related deaths in women occur when they are

older than 80.14,15

The strongest risk factor for the rupture of an

AAA is maximal aortic diameter.16,17 The natural

history of clinically apparent AAAs of 5.5 cm or

more is difficult to determine, since most large

aneurysms are surgically repaired. Results of 1 study

showed that 1-year incidence rates of rupture were

9% for AAAs of 5.5 to 5.9 cm; 10% for AAAs of

6.0 to 6.9 cm; and 33% for AAAs ≥ 7.0 cm.18 A

rapid rate of aneurysm expansion (> 1.0 cm/year)

is commonly used in making decisions about the

elective repair of AAAs < 5.5 cm; however, the

predictive value of expansion as an index of rupture

risk is less clear.19

The major risk factors for AAA include

male sex, a history of ever smoking (defined in

surveys as 100 cigarettes in a person’s lifetime),

and age 65 or older. Other lesser risk factors

include family history, coronary heart disease,

claudication, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension,

cerebrovascular disease, and increased height.3

Factors associated with decreased risk include

female sex, diabetes mellitus, and black race. 

Screening abdominal ultrasonography in

asymptomatic individuals is an accurate test, with

95% sensitivity and near 100% specificity.20,2 The

USPSTF review identified 4 randomized controlled

trials (RCTs) of screening for AAA; these RCTs

predominantly screened white men aged 65 and

older.2,3 A good-quality RCT of 67,800 white men

aged 65 to 74 was conducted to evaluate screening

for AAA.8 Screening was performed by

ultrasonography and surgery in men with AAAs

greater than 5.4 cm. The study showed AAA-related

mortality was reduced by an average of 42% (95%

CI, 22%–58%) in the screened population

compared with the non-screened population; the

absolute reduction in AAA-specific mortality was

0.14% (0.33% in the non-screened group and

0.19% in the screened group).3

A fair-quality RCT selected 15,775 white men

and women aged 65 to 80 from family medical

practices.21 This was the only one of the 4 RCTs

that studied women. The prevalence of AAA in

women was one-sixth of that in men. The

incidence of AAA rupture was the same in the

screened and control groups of women. This trial

lacked adequate power and reported a nonstatistically significant 41% reduction in AAArelated mortality in screened men and no

reduction in AAA-related mortality in screened

women. A fair-quality hospital-based RCT of

12,658 men aged 65 to 73 showed a 69%

statistically significant reduction in AAA-specific
4

Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: USPSTF Recommendations

mortality.22 Another RCT was population-based

and included 38,704 men aged 65 to 83. After

5 years of follow-up, 18 men in the group invited

to be screened, and 25 in the control group, died

of causes associated with AAA (odds ratio [OR],

0.72 [95% CI, 0.39–1.32]). In a subgroup analysis,

there was a statistically significant reduction in

AAA-related mortality in men aged 65 to 75, but

not in older men.23 A meta-analysis of these trials

showed a relative risk reduction of 43% in AAArelated deaths by screening for AAA, although

there was no change in all-cause mortality.2,3

Death from AAA rupture after negative results on

a single ultrasound scan at age 65 is rare. Studies

have shown that the incidence rate for new AAAs in

a period of 10 years is low, ranging from 0% to 4%;

none of the incident AAAs exceeded a diameter of

4.0 cm.15,24–26 Based on these studies, negative results

on a single ultrasound examination around the age

of 65 appear to virtually exclude the risk for future

AAA rupture or death.

Two randomized trials showed no statistically

significant mortality benefit from immediate

surgical repair compared with frequent surveillance

for intermediate-sized AAAs (4.0–5.4 cm).27,28

Additionally, about 39% fewer AAA-related

surgical repairs needed to be performed in the

surveillance group.

Two randomized trials reported that the 30-day

mortality rate for EVAR was significantly reduced

compared with open surgical repair (about 1.5% vs

4.5%, respectively).29,30 While there are short-term

mortality and morbidity benefits of performing

EVAR compared with open surgical repair, the

magnitude of long-term potential harms is not well

known. Long-term potential harms of EVAR may

occur because of device failure, which could cause

bleeding into the aneurysmal sac around the device

or from retrograde flow into the aneurysmal sac

through collateral blood vessels. These events may

require late conversion to open repair or may lead

to aneurysmal rupture. Studies of the EUROSTAR

(EUROpean collaborators on Stent-graft

Techniques for abdominal aortic Aneurysm Repair)

registry report an annual rupture rate of 1% and

conversion to open repair at an annual rate of 2%,

with a 24% peri-operative mortality rate for the

conversion.31,32

Although open surgical repair remains the only

proven intervention that leads to decreased AAA

mortality in the long term, there are major harms

associated with this procedure. One study showed

in-hospital mortality rates for patients undergoing

open repair to be 4.2%.33 The complication rate of

elective surgery is about 32% and includes

myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, renal

failure, ischemic colitis, spinal cord ischemia, and

prosthetic graft infections.3

There is a short-term impact of AAA screening

on quality-of-life measures. Those testing positive

for AAA initially had more anxiety and lower

physical and mental health scores (measured by the

Short Form-36) than those testing negative. Those

who underwent surgery, compared with those

receiving continued surveillance, had slightly lower

Short Form-36 scores but higher self-rated health

scores 3 months after surgery. These negative

psychological measures returned to normal levels

within 12 months after screening or surgery.8

The USPSTF review of 4 relevant costeffectiveness studies of AAA yielded an estimated

cost-effectiveness ratio of population-based AAA

screening (compared with no screening) that is in

the same range as that of other cost-effective

preventive services.4

The pathogenesis of AAA formation is complex

and multifactorial; more studies are needed to

clarify AAA’s natural history of formation and

expansion. A number of areas require further study,

including the lack of a strong association between

AAA and atherosclerotic disease; the prevalence and

natural history of AAA in women; the efficacy of

screening and treatment in nonwhite male

populations; the efficacy and periodicity of

surveillance of small AAAs (3.0–4.0 cm); and the

long-term efficacy of EVAR as an alternative to

open surgical repair, especially for AAAs less than

4.0 cm. There also is a need for a high-quality, costeffectiveness analysis of AAA screening conducted

from the U.S. societal perspective.
5

Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: USPSTF Recommendations

Recommendations of 

Other Groups

The Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society

for Vascular Medicine and Biology recommend

screening all men aged 60 to 85 for AAA; women

aged 60 to 85 with cardiovascular risk factors; and

men and women aged 50 and older with a family

history of AAA. These groups further recommend

the following courses of action after screening: no

further testing if aortic diameter is less than 3.0 cm;

yearly ultrasonographic screening if aortic diameter

is between 3.0 to 4.0 cm; ultrasonography every 6

months if aortic diameter is between 4.0 to 4.5 cm;

and referral to a vascular specialist if aortic diameter

is greater than 4.5 cm.34

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to

Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Washington,

DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion; 1996.

2. Fleming C, Whitlock EP, Beil T, Lederle F. Screening

for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a best-evidence

systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services

Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:203–211.

3. Fleming C, Whitlock EP, Beil T, Lederle F. Primary

Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

Evidence Synthesis No. 35 (Prepared by the Oregon

Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No.

290-02-0024.) Rockville, MD: Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2005.

(Available on the AHRQ Web site at: www.ahrq.

gov/clinic/serfiles.htm.)

4. Meenan RT, Fleming C, Whitlock EP, Beil TL,

Smith P. Cost-effectiveness analyses of populationbased screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm:

evidence synthesis. Rockville, MD: Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2005.

(Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/

uspstopics.htm.)

5. Johnston KW, Rutherford RB, Tilson MD, Shah

DM, Hollier L, Stanley JC. Suggested standards for

reporting on arterial aneurysms. Subcommittee on

Reporting Standards for Arterial Aneurysms, Ad Hoc

Committee on Reporting Standards, Society for

Vascular Surgery and North American Chapter,

International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery.

J Vasc Surg. 1991;13(3):452–458.

6. Gillum RF. Epidemiology of aortic aneurysm in

the United States. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(11):

1289–1298.

7. Bengtsson H, Bergqvist D, Ekberg O, Janzon L.

A population based screening of abdominal aortic

aneurysms (AAA). Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991;5(1):53–57.

8. Ashton HA, Buxton MJ, Day NE, et al. The

Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into

the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on

mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial.

Lancet. 2002;360(9345):1531–1539.

9. Lindholt JS, Henneberg EW, Fasting H, Juul S.

Mass or high-risk screening for abdominal aortic

aneurysm. Br J Surg. 1997;84(1):40–42.

10. Morris GE, Hubbard CS, Quick CR. An abdominal

aortic aneurysm screening programme for all males

over the age of 50 years. Eur J Vasc Surg.

1994;8(2):156–160.

11. Simoni G, Pastorino C, Perrone R, et al. Screening

for abdominal aortic aneurysms and associated risk

factors in a general population. Eur J Vasc Endovasc

Surg. 1995;10(2):207–210.

12. Smith FC, Grimshaw GM, Paterson IS, Shearman

CP, Hamer JD. Ultrasonographic screening for

abdominal aortic aneurysm in an urban community.

Br J Surg. 1993;80(11):1406–1409.

13. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, et al.

Prevalence and associations of abdominal aortic

aneurysm detected through screening. Aneurysm

Detection and Management (ADAM) Veterans

Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Ann Intern Med.

1997;126(6):441–449.

14. Scott RA, Bridgewater SG, Ashton HA. Randomized

clinical trial of screening for abdominal aortic

aneurysm in women. Br J Surg. 2002;89(3):283–285.

15. Scott RA, Vardulaki KA, Walker NM, Day NE,

Duffy SW, Ashton HA. The long-term benefits of

a single scan for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)

at age 65. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001;21(6):

535–540.

16. Nevitt MP, Ballard DJ, Hallett JW Jr. Prognosis of

abdominal aortic aneurysms. A population-based

study. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(15):1009–1014.
6

Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: USPSTF Recommendations

17. Glimaker H, Holmberg L, Elvin A, et al. Natural

history of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991;5(2):125–130.

18. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, et al. Rupture

rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients

refusing or unfit for elective repair. JAMA.

2002;287(22):2968–2972.

19. Wilmink AB, Quick CR. Epidemiology and

potential for prevention of abdominal aortic

aneurysm. Br J Surg. 1998;85(2):155–162.

20. van der Vliet JA, Oomen AP. Abdominal aortic

aneurysm: screening and treatment. [Dutch]. Ned

Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993;137(23):1155.

21. Scott RA, Wilson NM, Ashton HA, Kay DN.

Influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured

abdominal aortic aneurysm: 5-year results of a

randomized controlled study. Br J Surg. 1995;

82(8):1066–1070.

22. Lindholt JS, Juul S, Fasting H, Henneberg EW.

Hospital costs and benefits of screening for

abdominal aortic aneurysms. Results from a

randomised population screening trial. Eur J Vasc

Endovasc Surg. 2002;23(1):55–60.

23. Norman PE, Jamrozik K, Lawrence-Brown MM, et

al. Population based randomised controlled trial on

impact of screening on mortality from abdominal

aortic aneurysm. BMJ. 2004;329:1259–1262.

24. Crow P, Shaw E, Earnshaw JJ, Poskitt KR, Whyman

MR, Heather BP. A single normal ultrasonographic

scan at age 65 years rules out significant aneurysm

disease for life in men. Br J Surg. 2001;88(7):

941–944.

25. Emerton ME, Shaw E, Poskitt K, Heather BP.

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a single

scan is enough. Br J Surg. 1994;81(8):1112–1113.

26. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, et al. Yield of

repeated screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm

after a 4-year interval. Aneurysm Detection and

Management Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study

Investigators. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(8):

1117–1121.

27. Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al.

Immediate repair compared with surveillance of

small abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med.

2002;346(19):1437–1444.

28. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants.

Mortality results for randomised controlled trial of

early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance

for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Lancet.

1998;352(9141):1649–1655.

29. The EVAR trial participants. Comparison of

endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in

patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR

trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results:

randomised controlled trial. Lancet.

2004;364:843–848.

30. Prinssen M, Verhoeven ELG, Buth J, et al. A

randomized trial comparing conventional and

endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1607–1618.

31. Harris PL, Vallabhaneni SR, Desgranges P,

Becquemin JP, van Marrewijk C, Laheij RJ.

Incidence and risk factors of late rupture,

conversion, and death after endovascular repair of

infrarenal aortic aneurysms: the EUROSTAR

experience. European Collaborators on Stent/graft

techniques for aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg.

2000;32(4):739–749.

32. Vallabhaneni SR, Harris PL. Lessons learnt from the

EUROSTAR registry on endovascular repair of

abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Radiol.

2001;39(1):34–41.

33. Huber TS, Wang JG, Derrow AE, et al. Experience

in the United States with intact abdominal aortic

aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33(2):304–310.

34. Kent KC, Zwolak RM, Jaff MR, et al. Screening for

abdominal aortic aneurysm: a consensus statement.

J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:267–269.
The Task Force grades its recommendations according to one of 5 classifications (A, B, C, D, I)

reflecting the strength of evidence and magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms):

A. The USPSTF strongly recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients. The USPSTF

found good evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits

substantially outweigh harms.

B. The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients. The USPSTF found

at least fair evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits

outweigh harms.

C. The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service]. The USPSTF

found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of

benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation.

D. The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing [the service] to asymptomatic patients. The

USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] is ineffective or that harms outweigh benefits.

I. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely providing

[the service]. Evidence that [the service] is effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance

of benefits and harms cannot be determined.

The USPSTF grades the quality of the overall evidence for a service on a 3-point scale (good, fair, poor):

Good: Evidence includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative

populations that directly assess effects on health outcomes.

Fair: Evidence is sufficient to determine effects on health outcomes, but the strength of the evidence is

limited by the number, quality, or consistency of the individual studies, generalizability to routine

practice, or indirect nature of the evidence on health outcomes.

Poor: Evidence is insufficient to assess the effects on health outcomes because of limited number or power

of studies, important flaws in their design or conduct, gaps in the chain of evidence, or lack of

information on important health outcomes.

Appendix A

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations and Ratings

Appendix B

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—Strength of Overall Evidence

Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*

Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, Chair,

USPSTF (Acting Chief Medical

Officer and State Epidemiologist,

Colorado Department of Public Health

and Environment, Denver, CO)

Janet D. Allan, PhD, RN, CS, Vicechair, USPSTF (Dean, School of

Nursing, University of Maryland,

Baltimore, Baltimore, MD)

Alfred O. Berg, MD, MPH (Professor

and Chair, Department of Family

Medicine, University of Washington,

Seattle, WA)

Paul S. Frame, MD (Family Physician,

Tri-County Family Medicine,

Cohocton, NY, and Clinical Professor

of Family Medicine, University of

Rochester, Rochester, NY)

Leon Gordis, MD, MPH, DrPH

(Professor, Epidemiology Department,

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of

Public Health, Baltimore, MD)

Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH

(Director, Women’s Health Services

Research and Maternal-Fetal Medicine,

Department of Obstetrics and

Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical

Center, Los Angeles, CA)

Russell Harris, MD, MPH (Associate

Professor of Medicine, Sheps Center

for Health Services Research,

University of North Carolina School of

Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC)

Mark S. Johnson, MD, MPH

(Professor and Chair, Department of

Family Medicine, University of

Medicine and Dentistry of New

Jersey-New Jersey Medical School,

Newark, NJ)

Jonathan D. Klein, MD, MPH

(Associate Professor, Department of

Pediatrics, University of Rochester

School of Medicine, Rochester, NY)

Carol Loveland-Cherry, PhD, RN

(Executive Associate Dean, Office of

Academic Affairs, University of

Michigan School of Nursing, Ann

Arbor, MI)

Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH

(Professor, Department of Pediatrics,

University of Texas Health Science

Center, Houston, TX)

Judith K. Ockene, PhD (Professor of

Medicine and Chief of Division of

Preventive and Behavioral Medicine,

University of Massachusetts Medical

School, Worcester, MA)

Diana B. Petitti, MD, MPH (Senior

Scientific Advisor for Health Policy and

Medicine, Regional Administration,

Kaiser Permanente Southern

California, Pasadena ,CA)

Albert L. Siu, MD, MSPH (Professor

and Chairman, Brookdale Department

of Geriatrics and Adult Development,

Mount Sinai Medical Center, New

York, NY)

Steven M. Teutsch, MD, MPH

(Executive Director, Outcomes

Research and Management, Merck &

Company, Inc., West Point, PA)

Barbara P. Yawn, MD, MSc (Director

of Research, Olmstead Research

Center, Rochester, MN)

*Members of the Task Force at the time

this recommendation was finalized. For

a list of current Task Force members, go

to www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm.

AHRQ Pub. No. 05-0569-A

February 2005

Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: USPSTF Recommendations

7