ArticleLa Radiologia medica2011
Chest multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: diagnostic yield and proportion of other clinically relevant findings.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Assessing the Prevalence of Incidental Findings Identified by CTPA in Women of Reproductive Age.Emergency medicine international · 2018Article
- Enhancement of the pulmonary arteries and thoracic aorta: comparison of a biphasic contrast injection and fixed delay protocol with a monophasic injection and a timing bolus protocol.Emergency radiology · 2015Article
- Reduced z-axis coverage in multidetector-row CT pulmonary angiography decreases radiation dose and diagnostic accuracy of alternative diseases.The British journal of radiology · 2014Article
- Subsegmental pulmonary embolism: is the emperor still naked?La Radiologia medica · 2013Article
- Suboptimal implementation of diagnostic algorithms and overuse of computed tomography-pulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe authors evaluated the diagnostic yield of chest multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and the proportion of other clinically relevant findings in a large cohort of consecutive inpatients and patients referred from the emergency department (outpatients). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 327 radiological reports of chest MDCT scans performed for suspected acute PE in 327 patients (158 men, 169 women; mean age 69 years, standard deviation 17.33 years; 233 inpatients, 94 outpatients) were retrospectively evaluated and classified into four categories: 1, positive for PE; 2, negative for PE but positive for other findings requiring specific and immediate intervention; 3, completely negative or positive for findings with a potential for significant morbidity requiring specific action on follow-up; 4, indeterminate. The distribution of findings by categories among the entire population and inpatients and outpatients separately was calculated (chi-square test, α=0.05).
resultsIn the entire population, the diagnostic yield (i.e. proportion of cases classified as category 1) was 20.2% (66/327). Proportions of cases classified as categories 2, 3 and 4 were 27.5% (90/327), 44.3% (145/327) and 7.9% (26/327), respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between inpatients and outpatients (p=0.193).
conclusionsIn patients with suspected acute PE, chest MDCT provides evidence of conditions requiring immediate and specific intervention (i.e. categories 1 and 2) in nearly 50% of cases, without differences between inpatients and outpatients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21311990What 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.