Authors' reply to Quantrill, Benger, Ripley and colleagues, Roach, Rogers, and Haldar and colleagues.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  When a test is too good: how CT pulmonary angiograms find pulmonary emboli that do not need to be found.2013
• Comment on
  The accuracy of CT pulmonary angiography is not as high as purported.2013
• Comment on
  CT triple rule-out examination: higher radiation dose without clinical benefit.2013
• Comment on
  V/Q SPECT: the primary imaging test for suspected pulmonary embolism.2013
• Comment on
  Risk-benefit ratio favours treating all pulmonary emboli, no matter how small.2013
• Comment on
  Most patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism do not need anticoagulants.2013

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as