SynthesisPloS one2020
Diagnostic accuracy of three ultrasonography strategies for deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Lowering DVT-Related ED Visits via a Primary Care POCUS Pathway.POCUS journal · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of patients with lower limb fractures post-surgery regarding deep vein thrombosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Unveiling the complexities of catheter-related thrombosis: risk factors, preventive strategies, and management.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
- Expert-Based Narrative Review on Compression UltraSonography (CUS) for Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Complement activation assessed by C3bc and C5b-9 terminal complex as diagnostic biomarkers for deep vein thrombosis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating the benefits of machine learning for diagnosing deep vein thrombosis compared with gold standard ultrasound: a feasibility study.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Early Serial Echocardiographic and Ultrasonographic Findings in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.CHEST critical care · 2023Article
- Risk factors and new diagnostic index for deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities in elderly patients with traumatic femoral neck fracture.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Review
- COVID-19 as a Vascular Disease: Lesson Learned from Imaging and Blood Biomarkers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Choosing ultrasound technique for suspected deep vein thrombosis: which is best?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020Article
- Deep Venous Thrombosis in a Patient with a Moderate Pretest Probability and a Negative D-Dimer Test: A Review of the Diagnostic Algorithms.Journal of blood medicine · 2020Review
- Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis: Diagnosis and management.Science progressReview
- COVID-19 beyond the lungs: Unraveling its vascular impact and cardiovascular complications-mechanisms and therapeutic implications.Science progressReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompression ultrasonography (CUS) is the first-line imaging test in the diagnostic management of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremity. Three CUS strategies are used in clinical practice. However, their relative diagnostic accuracy is uncertain.
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize and compare the diagnostic accuracy of single limited, serial limited, and whole-leg CUS for DVT.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from January 1st, 1989 to July 23rd, 2019 for studies assessing at least one of the CUS strategies in adults with suspected DVT of the lower extremity, using clinical follow-up for venous thromboembolism or contrast venography as the reference standard. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate by independent authors. A bivariate random-effects model was used to compute diagnostic accuracy summary estimates.
resultsForty studies (n = 21,250) were included. The venous thromboembolic event rate after a negative CUS (failure rate) of single limited (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.83-2.5), serial limited (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.4-2.5), and whole-leg CUS (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.6-1.6) did not differ significantly. The proportion of positive results was lower with single limited CUS, as was DVT prevalence in this group.
conclusionsThe failure rates of single limited, serial limited, and whole-leg CUS for DVT appeared to be quite comparable. The relative failure rate of single limited CUS remains uncertain, as the DVT prevalence was lower in these studies. Therefore, this CUS strategy may only be safe in a selected group of low-risk patients. Preference for one of the strategies may be based on pretest probability assessment, feasibility, expertise, and perceived clinical relevance of isolated distal DVT.
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.