Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30259197›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018

Pulmonary Embolism for the Cardiologist: Emphasis on Diagnosis.

Jonathan Halevy, Mary Cushman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan HalevyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Vermont, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT, USA.
Mary CushmanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, University of Vermont, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT, USA. mary.cushman@uvm.edu.
University of Vermont Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPulmonary embolism (PE) is a common condition with high morbidity and mortality particularly if misdiagnosed or untreated. It has non-specific clinical manifestations, often presenting similarly to other cardiovascular conditions. The aim of this review is to summarize the clinical presentation, diagnostic algorithms, and imaging studies utilized to efficiently make or exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. RECENT

findingsRecent cohort studies have raised questions about the classic presentations of PE (particularly with regard to syncope) or lack thereof. Diagnosis of PE continues to evolve with new diagnostic algorithms, use of age-adjusted D-dimer cutoffs, validation of older algorithms, and emerging data on multimodality ultrasound and ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging in the diagnosis of PE. Optimizing clinical outcomes of PE depend on correct diagnosis of the condition. Given significant variability in clinical presentation, use of a diagnostic algorithm is essential. Use of a clinical decision rule and D-dimer testing can risk stratify patients to allow for judicious use of diagnostic imaging. V/Q scan, CT pulmonary angiography, and lower extremity ultrasound remain the diagnostic imaging modalities of choice with other promising imaging modalities requiring further study.

Indexed as

EchocardiographyFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansPulmonary EmbolismTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTomography, X-Ray ComputedVenous ThromboembolismFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productsfibrin fragment DClinical presentationDiagnosisPulmonary embolismReviewVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID30259197
OpenAlexW2894440099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.