ArticleBMJ open2018
SPECT V/Q for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcome.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative perfusion imaging from non-contrast micro-ct for pulmonary embolism evaluation in preclinical models.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Enhanced Diagnostic Accuracy of Pulmonary Embolism: Integrating Low-Dose CT with V/Q SPECT.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Joint Guideline on Venous Thromboembolism - 2022.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
- Targeting Contrast Agents With Peak Near-Infrared-II (NIR-II) Fluorescence Emission for Non-invasive Real-Time Direct Visualization of Thrombosis.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Review
- Detection of Pulmonary Embolism with Gallium-68 Macroaggregated Albumin Perfusion PET/CT: An Experimental Study in Rabbits.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2020Article
- State-of-the-Art Imaging for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSingle photon emission computed tomography ventilation/perfusion (SPECT V/Q) imaging has many proponents within the nuclear medicine community and has already largely replaced planar V/Q scintigraphy in daily practice for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the test is still described in clinical guidelines as an experimental test because of insufficient evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and management outcome studies involving patients evaluated with V/Q SPECT for suspected acute PE. We will search from inception to 19 December 2017 MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for diagnostic accuracy studies, randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies. Two reviewers will conduct all screening and data collection independently. The methodological quality and risk of bias of eligible studies will be carefully and rigorously assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. The primary outcomes will be sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios of V/Q SPECT for the diagnosis of acute PE. The secondary outcomes will be the rate of venous thromboembolism during a 3-month follow-up period in patients left untreated after a negative diagnostic work-up based on SPECT V/Q. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study of secondary data does not require ethics approval. It will be presented internationally and published in the peer-reviewed literature. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084095.
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.