Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2022
Elevation of the D-dimer cut-off level might be applicable to rule out pulmonary embolism for active cancer patients in the emergency department.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Age as a key risk factor for deep vein thrombosis in patients with lower limb cellulitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors for pulmonary embolism in lung cancer patients with lower limb deep venous thrombosis: a case-control study.Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
- A new machine learning model for predicting severity prognosis in patients with pulmonary embolism: Study protocol from Wenzhou, China.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- Study on the Diagnostic Value of Clinical Decision Rules for Malignant Tumors Complicated with Pulmonary Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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
Recent guidelines for diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are based on clinical decision rules and D-dimer. D-dimer measurement is recommended only for patients who are 'PE-unlikely'. We aimed to assess the current guidelines for cancer patients and to determine an optimal D-dimer cut-off level. This retrospective observational study was conducted in the emergency department of Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) between 02/2017 and 09/2017 for the development cohort and between 06/2018 and 02/2019 for the validation cohort. Among adult active cancer patients with suspected PE, we included those who were 'PE-unlikely' according to Wells' criteria and who underwent D-dimer testing and computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA). A total of 498 patients (227 in the development cohort and 271 in the validation cohort) were included, and PE was diagnosed in 8.8% and 18.5% of patients, respectively. The optimal D-dimer cut-off level was 2.0 μg/mL. This elevated cut-off level showed a much higher specificity of 21.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.2-27.3%) and 21.7% (95% CI 16.8-7.6%) in the development and validation sets, respectively, compared with the specificity of 4.4% (95% CI 2.3-8.1%) and 4.1% (95% CI 2.2-7.6%) using the age-adjusted cut-off. The new D-dimer cut-off value identified unnecessary CTPA for 21.3% of patients (absolute difference, 16.9%, 35 of 207) in the development cohort and 21.7% (absolute difference, 17.6%, 39 of 221) of patients in the validation cohort compared to using the standard age-adjusted cut-off. The elevated D-dimer cut-off value combined with Wells' criteria might reduce unnecessary CTPA in active cancer patients with a 'PE-unlikely' classification. Further clinical trials are warranted to improve the PE diagnostic strategy in cancer patients.
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.