ArticleEmergency radiology2017
Negative D-dimer testing excludes pulmonary embolism in non-high risk patients in the emergency department.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evaluation of plasma D-dimer concentrations as a marker for thromboembolism in cattle with inflammation.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2026Article
- "A cross-sectional analysis of four common clinical decision rules for pulmonary embolism": The need for integrated and evolving approaches.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2025Article
- Quality assurance for magnetic resonance angiography of the chest in patients suspected of pulmonary embolism during iodinated contrast shortage in the emergency department setting.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of D-dimer in predicting venous thromboembolism and acute aortic dissection.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2021Article
- Venous Thromboembolism Has a Variable Time of Occurrence in the Course of COVID-19: A Case Series.Cureus · 2020Article
- The diagnostic value of D-dimer with simplified Geneva score (SGS) pre-test in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE).Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2020Article
- Order Indication Solicitation to Assess Clinical Laboratory Test Utilization: D-Dimer Order Patterns as an Illustrative Case.Journal of pathology informatics · 2019Article
- State-of-the-Art Imaging for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Magnetic resonance angiography for the primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: A review from the international workshop for pulmonary functional imaging.World journal of radiology · 2018Review
- Age-Adjusted D-Dimer in the Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism: Does a Normal Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Rule Out PE?BioMed research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the ability of d-dimer testing to obviate the need for cross-sectional imaging for patients at "non-high risk" for pulmonary embolism (PE).
methodsThis is a retrospective study of emergency department patients at an academic medical center who underwent cross-sectional imaging (MRA or CTA) to evaluate for PE from 2008 to 2013. The primary outcome was the NPV of d-dimer testing when used in conjunction with clinical decision instruments (CDIs = Wells', Revised Geneva, and Simplified Revised Geneva Scores). The reference standard for PE status included image test results and a 6-month chart review follow-up for venous thromboembolism as a proxy for false negative imaging. Secondary analyses included ROC curves for each CDI and calculation of PE prevalence in each risk stratum.
resultsOf 459 patients, 41 (8.9%) had PE. None of the 76 patients (16.6%) with negative d-dimer results had PE. Thus, d-dimer testing had 100% sensitivity and NPV, and there were no differences in CDI performance. Similarly, when evaluated independently of d-dimer results, no CDI outperformed the others (areas under the ROC curves ranged 0.53-0.55). There was a significantly higher PE prevalence in the high versus "non-high risk" groups when stratified by the Wells' Score (p = 0.03).
conclusionsNegative d-dimer testing excluded PE in our retrospective cohort. Each CDI had similar NPVs, whether analyzed in conjunction with or independently of d-dimer results. Our results confirm that PE can be safely excluded in patients with "non-high risk" CDI scores and a negative d-dimer.
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.