ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Influence of using recommended radiological criteria on MDCT-angiography diagnosis of single isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
objectivesWe assessed the rate of false-positive diagnoses of MDCT-pulmonary angiography (MDCT-A) in patients with single isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SISSPE).
methodsAll patients who underwent MDCT-A between 2006 and 2017 for ruling out acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and received an initial diagnosis of SISSPE were included. The MDCT-A of these patients were reviewed retrospectively by four experienced thoracic radiologists, who applied radiological criteria recommended by the American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Guidelines (ACCP 2016) for the diagnosis of SISSPE. Data extracted from medical records were history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), alternative diagnoses, other diagnostic studies for VTE, anticoagulation, bleeding complications, and VTE over the following 3 months.
resultsOf 3839 patients undergoing MDCT-A, PE was found in 1021 (26.6%) and SISSPE in 59 (1.5% overall and 5.8% of all patients with PE). An alternative diagnosis to PE was made on the basis of CT in 33 (55.9%) patients. Forty-one (69.5%) patients received anticoagulants, and major life-threatening bleeding complications occurred in 2, with one death. Recurrent PE was not documented in any patient with SISSPE. In the retrospective assessment of the 59 cases of SISSPE, 21 were negative for PE, with a false-positive rate of 35.6% (21/59); so the percentage of SISSPE cases after the revision was 3.7% of all patients with PE; 11 of these 21 patients received anticoagulation.
conclusionsRadiologists should be aware of the high rate of false-positives when making the diagnosis of SISSPE on MDCT-A without using strict diagnostic criteria. Misdiagnosis exposes patients to unnecessary anticoagulation. KEY POINTS: • Radiologist should be aware of the high rate of false-positive diagnoses of single isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SISSPE) in MDCT-pulmonary angiography (MDCT-A) performed for ruling out pulmonary embolism. • Misdiagnosis of SISSPE in MDCT-A can be reduced by using strict diagnostic radiological criteria recommended by the American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Guidelines. • Unnecessary anticoagulation therapy with potential severe bleeding complications may result from misdiagnosis of SISSPE.
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.