ArticleEmergency radiology2020
A higher D-dimer threshold for predicting pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective study.
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 38 papers, 4 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 and value of D-dimer assessment: a meta-analysis.European radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Risk factors for pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19: a systemic review and meta-analysis.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Mortality and risk factors associated with pulmonary embolism in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Vascular medicine (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Assessment of the relationship between CT-severity scores, pulmonary artery diameters, and D-dimer/CRP ratios in COVID-19 patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection on the Performance of Clinical Decision-Making Algorithms for Pulmonary Embolism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Utility of D-dimer in predicting pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 presenting to the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
- Non-Invasive Ventilation Support during Hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 and the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- An optimized D-dimer cut-off value to predict pulmonary thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Serial measurements of lymphocytes, D-dimer, LDH, and CRP do not improve the ability to predict COVID-19 adverse outcomes.The Journal of international medical research · 2023Article
- Article
- Advanced Imaging Supports the Mechanistic Role of Autoimmunity and Plaque Rupture in COVID-19 Heart Involvement.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2023Review
- Role of Combined CT Pulmonary Angiography and Indirect CT Venography in Diagnosing Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19 Patients - Experience From an Indian Quaternary Centre.Vascular and endovascular surgery · 2023Article
- Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.PloS one · 2023Article
- COVID-19 and Pulmonary Thrombosis-An Unresolved Clinical Puzzle: A Single-Center Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- A systematic review of biomarkers among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 predictive of venous thromboembolism: A communication from the Predictive and Diagnostic Variables Scientific and Standardization Committee of the ISTH.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19 and Other Special Patient Populations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- What level of D-dimers can safely exclude pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department?European radiology · 2022Article
- A retrospective review of CT pulmonary angiogram confirmed pulmonary emboli in COVID-19 patients admitted to Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town.SA journal of radiology · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCOVID-19 raises D-dimer (DD) levels even in the absence of pulmonary embolism (PE), resulting in an increase in computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) requests. Our purpose is to determine whether there are differences between DD values in PE-positive and PE-negative COVID-19 patients and, if so, to establish a new cutoff value which accurately determines when a CTPA is needed.
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed all COVID-19 patients who underwent a CTPA due to suspected PE between March 1 and April 30, 2020, at Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid (Spain). DD level comparisons between PE-positive and PE-negative groups were made using Student's t test. The optimal DD cutoff value to predict PE risk in COVID-19 patients was calculated in the ROC curve.
resultsTwo hundred forty-two patients were included in the study. One hundred fifty-one (62%) were men and the median age was 68 years (IQR 55-78). An increase of DD (median 3260; IQR 1203-9625 ng/mL) was detected in 205/242 (96%) patients. 73/242 (30%) of the patients were diagnosed with PE on CTPA. The DD median value was significantly higher (p < .001) in the PE-positive group (7872, IQR 3150-22,494 ng/mL) compared with the PE-negative group (2009, IQR 5675-15,705 ng/mL). The optimal cutoff value for DD to predict PE was 2903 ng/mL (AUC was 0.76 [CI 95% 0.69-0.83], sensitivity 81%). The overall mortality rate was 16% (39/242).
conclusionA higher threshold (2903 ng/mL) for D-dimer could predict the risk of PE in COVID-19 patients with a sensitivity of 81%.
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.