ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021
To scan or not to scan - D-dimers and computed tomography pulmonary angiography in the era of COVID-19.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- "A cross-sectional analysis of four common clinical decision rules for pulmonary embolism": The need for integrated and evolving approaches.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Disease in Patients with Underlying Congenital Inferior Vena Cava Anomalies.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Clinico-radiological and pulmonary function assessment of post-COVID-19 patients with respiratory symptoms.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Construction and validation of risk prediction models for pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients based on different machine learning methods.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Pulmonary embolism diagnosis with D-dimer levels and computed tomography.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2024Article
- Simple demographic, laboratory and chest radiograph variables can identify COVID-19 patients with pulmonary thromboembolism: a retrospective multicentre United Kingdom study.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- D-Dimer as a Sensitive Biomarker of Survival Rate in Patients with COVID-19.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2022Article
- COVID-19 in the Radiology Literature: A Look Back.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2022Article
- Point-of-care transthoracic echocardiography.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had many ramifications on healthcare delivery and practice. As part of this, utilising biomarkers to risk stratify patients has become increasingly popular. During the COVID-19 pandemic the use of D-dimer has increased due to the evidence of COVID-19 induced thrombo-embolic disease. We evaluated the use of D-dimer on all hospital admissions during the peak of the pandemic and evaluated its sensitivity in diagnosing pulmonary embolic disease (PE). Patients without COVID-19 infection were as likely to have evidence of PE as their COVID-positive counterparts. However, the sensitivity of a D-dimer was higher in COVID-positive patients at a lower D-dimer level (>1,500 μg/L, sensitivity 81%, specificity 70%) than in those without clinical, immunological or radiological evidence of COVID-19 infection (D-dimer >2,000 μg/L, sensitivity 80%, specificity 76%). These data suggest higher D-dimer thresholds should be considered for the exclusion of pulmonary emboli.
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.