Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16475039›Full record

ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2006

Advances in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.

Philip S Wells

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Respiratory review of 2013: pulmonary thromboembolism.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2013
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multimodality imaging of the peripheral venous system.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2007
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philip S WellsDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa, Suite F6-49, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9 Canada. pwells@ohri.ca
Ottawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review summarizes recent information about the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) using noninvasive imaging tests, clinical assessment, and D-dimer assays, and describes how these tests can be employed in diagnostic testing algorithms for the investigation of patients with suspected DVT and PE. The clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis is unreliable, but clinical prediction rules based on signs and symptoms do facilitate the categorization of patients into high, low, or medium risk categories. High sensitivity D-dimer assays further help in excluding cases but do not help in ruling in venous thromboembolism. D-dimer assays and clinical prediction rules also help in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. These assessments, along with objective imaging studies such as compression ultrasonography for DVT or computerized tomographic pulmonary angiograms for PE can be used in a systematic way to reliably rule in or exclude venous thromboembolism.

Indexed as

Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyPulmonary EmbolismVenous ThrombosisFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productsfibrin fragment D

Identifiers

PMID16475039
OpenAlexW2057954037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.