How reliable is Quinke's sign (Quincke's sign) in assessing cardiac function?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: November 7, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Quinke's Sign Reliability in Assessing Cardiac Function

Quinke's sign (capillary pulsation in the nailbed) is not useful for assessing cardiac function and should not be relied upon clinically. 1

Evidence Against Clinical Utility

The most definitive research examining Quinke's sign concluded it lacks clinical utility for diagnosing or assessing aortic insufficiency, despite its historical association with this condition. 1 This finding is particularly important because:

  • The sign appears in many normal individuals, making it non-specific for pathology 1, 2
  • It can be mimicked by non-cardiac conditions such as sclerodactyly and keratoderma, where mechanical compression of nailbeds creates visible pulsations without any underlying hemodynamic abnormality 2
  • No sensitivity or specificity data support its use, unlike other peripheral signs of aortic regurgitation 1

Superior Alternative Physical Examination Signs

When evaluating for aortic insufficiency specifically, the evidence supports using different physical examination findings:

  • Duroziez's sign (femoral double intermittent murmur, as modified by Blumgart and Ernstene) demonstrates approximately 100% specificity and 90% sensitivity for aortic insufficiency, making it highly recommended 1
  • Hill's sign (popliteal systolic blood pressure exceeding brachial systolic pressure by ≥20 mmHg) can predict the severity of aortic insufficiency and correlates with angiographic findings, though it misses mild cases 1
  • De Musset's sign (head bobbing) has undetermined but apparently low sensitivity and specificity 1

Context of Physical Examination Reliability

The limitations of Quinke's sign fit within broader evidence about physical examination reliability:

  • Physical signs in general demonstrate significant interobserver variability, with physicians achieving complete agreement only 55% of the time when examining the same patients 3
  • Even vital sign measurements show substantial variability, with expected ranges of agreement for blood pressure of ±24.2 mmHg systolic and ±19.9 mmHg diastolic between trained observers 4

Recommended Approach for Cardiac Assessment

For evaluating cardiac function, echocardiography remains the gold standard rather than relying on peripheral physical signs. 5 Echocardiography provides:

  • Direct visualization of valve function and regurgitation 5
  • Quantitative assessment of ventricular function 5
  • Hemodynamic measurements including pressure gradients 5
  • Assessment of right ventricular function and pulmonary pressures 5, 6

When aortic insufficiency is suspected clinically, proceed directly to echocardiographic evaluation rather than attempting to confirm with unreliable peripheral signs like Quinke's pulse. 1

References

Research

The reliability of vital sign measurements.

Annals of emergency medicine, 2002

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Pulmonary Hypertension Diagnosis Based on Echocardiography

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.