ArticleAcademic radiology2020
Predictors of Overtesting in Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis.
Article in Academic radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nudging provider adoption of clinical decision support: study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized, hybrid type III trial of an electronic health record-agnostic pulmonary embolism risk tool.Implementation science : IS · 2026Article
- Disparities in Current Pulmonary Embolism Management and Outcomes: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Factors Predicting CT Pulmonary Angiography Results in the Emergency Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influencing factors on the time to CT in suspected pulmonary embolism: an explorative investigation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Diagnostic Yield of CT Pulmonary Angiogram in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism and Its Predictive Factors.Cureus · 2023Article
- Predictors of positive computed tomography pulmonary angiography results.Emergency radiology · 2020Observational
- Variability in practice patterns among emergency physicians in the evaluation of patients with a suspected diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.Emergency radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis must be weighed against its risks, radiation-induced malignancy, and contrast-induced nephropathy. Appropriate use of CTPA can be assessed by monitoring yield, the percentage of tests positive for PE. We identify factors that are associated low CTPA yield, which may predict overtesting.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of six emergency departments between June 2014 and February 2017. The electronic health record was queried for CTPAs ordered for adult patients in the emergency department. We assessed the following patient factors: age, gender, body mass index, number of comorbidities, race, and ethnicity, provider factors: type (resident, fellow, attending, physician assistant) and environment factors: test time of day, season of visit, and crowdedness of the department.
resultsA total of 14,782 CTPAs were reviewed, of which 1366 were found to be positive for PE, resulting in an overall CTPA yield of 9.24%. Provider type was not associated with a difference in yield. Testing was less likely to be positive in younger patients, females, those with lower body mass indexes and those identifying as Asian or Hispanic. Testing was also less likely to be positive when ordered during the overnight shift and during the winter and spring seasons.
conclusionOur study identified several patient and environmental factors associated with low CTPA yield suggesting potential targets for overtesting. Targeting education and clinical decision support to assist providers in these circumstances may meaningfully improve yields.
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.