ArticlePulmonary medicine2021
Effectiveness of Clinical Decision Tools in Predicting Pulmonary Embolism.
Article in Pulmonary medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning improves prediction of pulmonary thromboembolism and reduces unnecessary computed tomography scans in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Efficient management of pulmonary embolism diagnosis using a two-step interconnected machine learning model based on electronic health records data.Health information science and systems · 2024Article
- Overuse of Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography and Low Utilization of Clinical Prediction Rules in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Patients at a Regional Australian Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Wells criteria and revised Geneva score are two commonly used clinical decision tools (CDTs) developed to assist physicians in determining when computed tomographic angiograms (CTAs) should be performed to evaluate the high index of suspicion for pulmonary embolism (PE). Studies have shown varied accuracy in these CDTs in identifying PE, and we sought to determine their accuracy within our patient population.
methodsPatients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) who received a CTA for suspected PE from 2019 Jun 1 to 2019 Aug 31 were identified. Two CDTSs, the Wells criteria and revised Geneva score, were calculated based on data available prior to CTA and using the common D-Dimer cutoff of >500
results392 CTAs were identified with 48 (12.1%) positive PE cases. The Wells criteria and revised Geneva score were significantly associated with PE but failed to identify 12.5% and 70.4% of positive PE cases, respectively. Within our cohort, a D-Dimer cutoff of >300
conclusionsBoth CDTs were significantly associated with PE but failed to identify PE in a significant number of cases, particularly the revised Geneva score. Alternative D-Dimer cutoffs may provide better accuracy in identifying PE cases.
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.