ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2021
Physician choices in pulmonary embolism testing.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision Moments and Pulmonary Embolism Diagnostic Quality in the Emergency Department.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- YEARS clinical decision rule for diagnosing pulmonary embolism: a prospective diagnostic cohort follow-up study in primary care.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Influence of an Alternative Diagnosis on the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Thromboembolism.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Improved detection of small pulmonary embolism on unenhanced computed tomography using an artificial intelligence-based algorithm - a single centre retrospective study.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- 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
- D-dimer diagnostics: can I use any D-dimer assay? Bridging the knowledge-to-action gap.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Elevated plasma complement factor H related 5 protein is associated with venous thromboembolism.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Algorithms for Pulmonary Embolism: Time to Eliminate Pretest Probability as a Gateway to D-dimer Testing?Annals of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Diagnostic approach and use of CTPA in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in an emergency department in Saudi Arabia.Blood research · 2023Article
- Do physicians contribute to psychological distress after venous thrombosis?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based guidelines advise excluding pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using d-dimer in patients with a lower probability of PE. Emergency physicians frequently order computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography without d-dimer testing or when d-dimer is negative, which exposes patients to more risk than benefit. Our objective was to develop a conceptual framework explaining emergency physicians' test choices for PE.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews of emergency physicians in Canada. A nonmedical researcher conducted in-person interviews. Participants described how they would test simulated patients with symptoms of possible PE, answered a knowledge test and were interviewed on barriers to using evidence-based PE tests.
resultsWe interviewed 63 emergency physicians from 9 hospitals in 5 cities, across 3 provinces. We identified 8 domains: anxiety with PE, barriers to using the evidence (time, knowledge and patient), divergent views on evidence-based PE testing, inherent Wells score problems, the drive to obtain CT rather than to diagnose PE, gestalt estimation artificially inflating PE probability, subjective reasoning and cognitive biases supporting deviation from evidence-based tests and use of evidence-based testing to rule out PE in patients who are very unlikely to have PE. Choices for PE testing were influenced by the disease, environment, test qualities, physician and probability of PE.
interpretationAnalysis of structured interviews with emergency physicians provided a conceptual framework to explain how these physicians use tests for suspected PE. The data suggest 8 domains to address when implementing an evidence-based protocol to investigate PE.
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.