ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2021
D-dimer can help differentiate suspected pulmonary embolism patients that require anti-coagulation.
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Beyond the fractures: A comprehensive Comparative analysis of Affordable and Accessible laboratory parameters and their coefficients for prediction and Swift confirmation of pulmonary embolism in high-risk orthopedic patients.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- The plasma D-dimer trends and their value in acute lower limb ischemia patients treated by catheter directed thrombolysis.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDetermine whether D-dimer concentration in the absence of imaging can differentiate patients that require anti-coagulation from patients who do not require anti-coagulation.
methodsData was obtained retrospectively from 366 hemodynamically stable adult ED patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Patients were categorized by largest occluded artery and aggregated into: 'Require anti-coagulation' (main, lobar, and segmental PE), 'Does not require anti-coagulation' (sub-segmental and No PE), 'High risk of deterioration' (main and lobar PE), and 'Not high risk of deterioration' (segmental, sub-segmental, and No PE) groups. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for 2 sample comparisons of median D-dimer concentrations. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was utilized to determine a D-dimer cut-off that could differentiate 'Require anti-coagulation' from 'Does not require anti-coagulation' and 'High risk of deterioration' from 'Low risk of deterioration' groups.
resultsThe 'Require anti-coagulation' group had a maximum area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 at an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off of 1540 with a specificity of 86% (95% CI, 81-91%), and sensitivity of 84% (79-90%). The 'High risk of deterioration' group had a maximum AUC of 0.93 at an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off of 2500 with a specificity of 90% (85-93%) and sensitivity of 83% (77-90%).
conclusionsAn age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off of 1540 ng/mL differentiates suspected PE patients requiring anti-coagulation from those not requiring anti-coagulation. A cut-off of 2500 differentiates those with high risk of clinical deterioration from those not at high risk of deterioration. When correlated with clinical outcomes, these cut-offs can provide an objective method for clinical decision making when imaging is unavailable.
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.