SynthesisBlood advances2020
Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy.
Synthesis in Blood advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The American Venous Forum clinical practice guideline on the care of patients with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Guideline
- Design-related bias in studies investigating diagnostic tests for venous thromboembolic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis.Blood advances · 2020Pooled it
- Controlled External Thigh Compression: A Feasible Method to Simulate Venous Hemodynamic Alterations Resembling Deep Vein Thrombosis.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Article
- An unusual case of deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity following breast reduction.Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery · 2025Article
- Effort-Induced Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Right Upper Extremity.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Systematic review of the use of ultrasound for venous assessment and venous thrombosis screening in spaceflight.NPJ microgravity · 2024Article
- Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis following BBIBP-CorV COVID-19 vaccine (Sinopharm vaccine): A case report.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Daily point-of-care ultrasound-assessment of central venous catheter-related thrombosis in critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter study.Intensive care medicine · 2023Article
- Pathophysiology, risk, diagnosis, and management of venous thrombosis in space: where are we now?NPJ microgravity · 2023Review
- Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Upper Extremity Deep-Vein Thrombosis in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) accounts for ≤10% of DVT and can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Accurate diagnosis and treatment are necessary for safe and effective patient management. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of D-dimer and duplex ultrasonography (US) for the evaluation of suspected first-episode UEDVT. We searched the Cochrane Central Register, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. We included prospective cross-sectional and cohort studies that evaluated test accuracy. Two investigators independently screened and collected data. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 9 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52), respectively. The pooled estimates for duplex US sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-0.94) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93), respectively. Certainty of evidence was moderate. In this review, we summarized the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of D-dimer and duplex US for this indication. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests found in the present review should be considered in the context of whether they are used alone or in combination, which is dependent on the prevalence of disease in the population, the clinical setting in which the patient is being evaluated, cost, potential harms, and patient outcomes. This study was registered at PROSPERO as Systematic Review Registration Number CRD42018098488.
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.