ArticleEmergency radiology2020
Evaluation of CTPA interpreted as limited in pregnant patients suspected for 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy.Chest · 2025Review
- Determining the diagnostic value of three clinical criteria Wells', YEARS and modified Geneva in pregnant women with suspected pulmonary thromboembolism.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the rates of CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) interpreted as limited and severely limited in pregnant patients suspected for pulmonary embolism (PE), and to evaluate factors that influence these rates.
methodsThis is a retrospective study with CTPA for evaluation of PE in pregnancy across a large health system from 2006 to 2017. CTPA was classified as limited from the radiology report with a subset of those studies classified as severely limited. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was performed for limited and severely limited rates with maternal age and patient size as a continuous variable and race, trimester, patient location study priority status, and result of chest radiograph before CTPA as categorical variables.
results874 patients with 33% of studies limited and 4% of studies severely limited. Multivariate logistic regression of CTPA studies revealed decreasing patient age (OR 0.967, p = 0.0129) and increasing patient size (OR 1.013, p < 0.0001). Studies performed in the second trimester (OR 1.869, p = 0.0242) and third trimester (OR 2.314, p = 0.0021) were more likely to be reported as limited (each p < 0.05). Increasing patient size (OR 1.017, p = 0.0046) was the only significant predictor of severely limited versus non-severely limited studies.
conclusionCTPA interpreted as limited in pregnancy are common and may be associated with younger age, larger patient size, and second and third trimesters. However, severely limited interpretations are much less common, with patient size the only significant predictor.
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.