Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34161671›Full record

SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH2021

D-dimer to rule out venous thromboembolism during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marta Bellesini, Helia Robert-Ebadi, Christophe Combescure, Cristina Dedionigi, Grégoire Le Gal, Marc Righini

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Marta BellesiniDivision of Angiology and Hemostasis, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Helia Robert-EbadiDivision of Angiology and Hemostasis, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3801-1269
Christophe CombescureDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Health and Community Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cristina DedionigiDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Center on Thromboembolic Disorders and Antithrombotic Therapies, University of Insubria, Varese and Como, Italy.
Grégoire Le GalDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Marc RighiniDivision of Angiology and Hemostasis, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Insubria · ITUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe usefulness of D-dimer measurement to rule out venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy is debated.

objectivesWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety of D-dimer to rule out acute VTE in pregnant women with suspected pulmonary embolism and/or deep vein thrombosis.

methodsTwo reviewers independently identified studies through PubMed and Embase until June 2021, week 1. We supplemented our search by manually reviewing reference lists of all retrieved articles, clinicalTrials.gov, and reference literature. Prospective or retrospective studies in which a formal diagnostic algorithm was used to evaluate the ability of D-dimer to rule out VTE during pregnancy were eligible.

resultsWe identified 665 references through systematic database and additional search strategies; 45 studies were retrieved in full, of which four were included, after applying exclusion criteria. Three studies were prospective, and one had a retrospective design. The 3-month thromboembolic rate in pregnant women left untreated after a negative D-dimer was 1/312 (0.32%; 95% CI, 0.06-1.83). The pooled estimate values were 99.5% for sensitivity (95% CI, 95.0-100.0; I², 0%) and 100% for negative predictive value (95% CI, 99.19-100.0; I², 0%). The prevalence of VTE and the yield of D-dimer were 7.4% (95% CI, 3.8-12; I², 83%) and 34.2% (95% CI, 15.9-55.23; I², 89%) respectively.

conclusionOur results suggest that D-dimer allows to safely rule out VTE in pregnant women with suspected VTE and a disease prevalence consistent with a low/intermediate or unlikely pretest probability.

Indexed as

Pulmonary EmbolismVenous ThromboembolismFemaleFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productsfibrin fragment Dclinical probabilityD-dimer.diagnostic strategypregnancypulmonary embolism

Identifiers

PMID34161671
PMCPMC8519079
OpenAlexW3173945347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.