ArticleThe British journal of radiology2012
Pulmonary embolism: investigation of the clinically assessed intermediate risk subgroup.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism.Blood advances · 2020Pooled it
- Sex differences in guideline-consistent diagnostic testing for acute pulmonary embolism among adult emergency department patients aged 18-49.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2023Article
- D-dimer testing for safe exclusion and risk stratification in patients with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2015Article
- Assessing 2 D-dimer age-adjustment strategies to optimize computed tomographic use in ED evaluation of pulmonary embolism.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe simplified Wells pre-test probability scoring algorithm for pre-investigation evaluation of pulmonary emboli (PE) is a commonly utilised and validated assessment tool. We sought to identify whether use of a dichotomised scoring system altered the overall negative predictive value (NPV) in patients referred for CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) assessment of suspected PE.
methodsProspective data collection of all patients referred for CTPA evaluation of suspected acute PE during a 3 year period was carried out. Pre-test risk stratification was performed according to simplified Wells criteria in conjunction with plasma d-Dimer (Bio-Pool and IL test) estimation. Retrospective dichotomisation was also performed.
results2531 patients were investigated for suspected acute PE; acute thromboemboli were confirmed in 22.7%. The overall NPV for negative d-Dimer and intermediate pre-test probability (PTP) was 98.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 96.3-99.7%]; with retrospective dichotomisation, the NPV for the PE unlikely group was 99.0% (95% CI 94.8-99.8%). Implementation of dichotomised scoring, excluding PE unlikely with negative d-Dimer cases from further imaging, would have yielded a 4% reduction in CTPA referral pathway imaging at our institution.
conclusionWe demonstrate no significant difference between exclusion in the intermediate subgroup and the retrospectively dichotomised PE unlikely group and demonstrate the high negative predictive power of the Bio-Pool and IL tests in conjunction with the Wells PTP tool. Prior to implementation of new guidelines for exclusion of patients with suspected PE from further imaging, hospitals should audit their own practice and validate the d-Dimer assay utilised at their institution.
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.