ArticleRespiratory research2020
An authoritative algorithm most appropriate for the prediction of pulmonary embolism in patients with AECOPD.
Article in Respiratory research, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The 3-level Wells score combined with D-dimer can accurately diagnose acute pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of COPD: A multicentre cohort study.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
- Optimal authoritative risk assessment score of Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism for hospitalized medical patients with lung Cancer.Thrombosis journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContemporarily authoritative algorithms for the prediction of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) comprise the Standard algorithm, the Age-adjusted algorithm, the YEARS algorithm, the PERC algorithm, and the PEGeD algorithm. To date, little is known with respect to which algorithm is most appropriate for the PE prediction in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).
methodsThe patients with AECOPD who underwent the confirmed chest imaging investigations of PE due to the likelihood of PE predicted by the Standard algorithm were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were reassessed by the other four algorithms to reveal which algorithm had the best diagnostic accuracy for the likelihood prediction of PE for patients with AECOPD.
resultsThe results showed that the PEGeD algorithm(88.6, 80.7, 50.4, 97.0%, 4.591, 0.141, 0.693, 82.1%) performed better overall in the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, Youden index, and diagnostic accuracy, in comparison with the Age-adjusted algorithm (78.6, 74.1, 40.1, 94.0%, 3.034, 0.289, 0.527, 74.9%), the YEARS algorithm (71.4, 76.6, 40.3, 92.4%, 3.051, 0.373, 0.480,75.6%), the PERC algorithm (98.6, 1.6, 18.2, 83.3%, 1.002, 0.875, 0.002, 19.2%). The difference of number of patients who were necessary to undergo chest imaging examinations and missed diagnoses resulted from each algorithm between the PEGeD algorithm and the Standard algorithm, the Age-adjusted algorithm, the YEARS algorithm, as well as the PERC algorithm were [- 789 (- 68.1%), N/A], [- 42 (- 3.6%),-21 (- 1.8%)], [- 3 (- 0.3%),-36 (- 3.1%)],[- 771 (- 66.6%), 21 (1.8%)], respectively.
conclusionsTo date, the PEGeD algorithm is the most appropriate strategy among the authoritative algorithms for the likelihood prediction of pulmonary embolism in patients with AECOPD.
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.