ArticleObstetric medicine2020
New evidence in diagnosis of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy.
Article in Obstetric medicine, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy.Chest · 2025Review
- Pulmonary Embolism in Pregnancy: A Review for Clinical Practitioners.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy is notoriously difficult and lacking high quality evidence. Three studies (DiPEP, ARTEMIS and CT-PE-Pregnancy) evaluating a systematic approach to PE diagnosis have recently been published. DiPEP is a retrospective case-control study that found a poor utility of clinical decision rules or D-dimer testing for PE diagnosis in pregnancy. ARTEMIS and CT-PE-Pregnancy are well conducted prospective management studies that proposed two algorithms with different clinical decision rules and D-dimer criteria for the diagnosis of PE in pregnancy. They included few events in high risk patients, which makes difficult the assessment of both algorithm's safety in women with a high probability of PE. Considering this new evidence, D-dimer testing might be useful to avoid radiation imaging in pregnant women considered at low risk for PE. In contrast, a negative D-dimer cannot be considered sufficiently safe to rule out PE when clinicians estimate that PE is the most likely diagnosis.
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.