Trial reportPostgraduate medical journal2002
An algorithm for the investigation and management of patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis at a district general hospital.
Trial report in Postgraduate medical journal, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Combined use of rapid D-dimer testing and estimation of clinical probability in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Pooled it
- Current use of D-dimer for the exclusion of venous thrombosis in hospitalized patients.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Painful swollen leg--think beyond deep vein thrombosis or Baker's cyst.World journal of surgical oncology · 2008Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis.BMC medical imaging · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to show that clinical assessment and serial Dopplers could be used to exclude deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and also that clinical assessment in combination with D-dimers could be used to exclude DVT. This was a prospective trial. Patients underwent clinical assessment, colour flow Doppler, and D-dimer measurement. Patients with an equivocal first Doppler and patients with a moderate/high pre-test clinical score had a repeat Doppler. Follow up information was obtained to see if further thromboembolism developed. Outcome measures included the reliability of the clinical assessment, Doppler, and D-dimer in excluding DVT. One hundred and ninety four patients were enrolled. The negative predictive value of a low medical pre-test score in excluding DVT was 92%. Eighty eight patients underwent D-dimer measurement. The negative predictive value of a D-dimer <400 units was 96%. The negative predictive value of a low clinical pre-test score and D-dimer <400 units was 100%. The negative predictive value of a low clinical pre-test score and D-dimer <800 units was 97%. The negative predictive value of the combination of a low clinical pre-test score and D-dimer <400 units was 100%. Twenty three per cent of patients had a low clinical pre-test score and D-dimer <400 units. Thus, a DVT could be excluded in 23% of referred patients. This information could be used to reduce Doppler requests by 23%. No patient in whom clinical assessment and serial Dopplers had excluded a DVT suffered further thromboembolism on follow up. This study has thus shown that a low medical pre-test score and negative Doppler reliably exclude DVT; a low pre-test score and negative D-dimer would reliably exclude DVT.
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.