ArticleEmergency radiology2020
Variability in practice patterns among emergency physicians in the evaluation of patients with a suspected diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2020. 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.
- How Tasmanian Emergency Departments 'Choose Wisely' When Investigating Suspected Pulmonary Embolism.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Computed Tomography Angiography for Detection of Pulmonary Embolism in Western Australia Shows Increasing Use with Decreasing Diagnostic Yield.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Use of Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography in Emergency Departments: A Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Variation in Positivity Rates of Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiograms for the Evaluation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Among Emergency Department Physicians.The Permanente journal · 2022Article
- Utilization of serum D-dimer assays prior to computed tomography pulmonary angiography scans in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism among emergency department physicians: a retrospective observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- Predictors of positive computed tomography pulmonary angiography results.Emergency radiology · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe the inter-physician variability in the utilisation rate and diagnostic yield of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) among a group of emergency department (ED) physicians working in a similar clinical environment.
methodsWe collected data on all CTPA studies ordered by ED physicians at three affiliated sites during a 2-year period between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. For each physician, we calculated individual CTPA utilisation rate (total number of CTPAs ordered per 1000 ED visits) and diagnostic yield (percentage of CTPAs that were positive for PE). Additional analysis was carried out in order to identify the highest orderers of CTPA and their diagnostic yield.
resultsSeventy-seven ED physicians who collectively ordered a total of 2788 CTPAs were included in the study. Utilisation rates ranged from 1.1 to 22.2 CTPA per 1000 ED visits (median: 5.2 CTPA/1000 ED visits; 25%ile: 3.6 CTPA/1000 ED visits; 75%ile: 7.9 CTPA/1000 ED visits) and the CTPA diagnostic yields ranged from 0% to 33% (median: 9.1%; 25%ile: 5.2%; 75%ile: 16.1%). Those physicians in the lower quartile for ordering rate had a higher mean diagnostic yield when compared to the higher quartiles.
conclusionThe findings of this study demonstrate variability in CTPA ordering patterns and diagnostic yields among physicians working within the same clinical environment. There is some suggestion that those physicians who order disproportionately higher numbers of CTPAs have lower diagnostic yields.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31754935What 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.