ArticleCardiovascular journal of Africa
Changing face of pulmonary embolism with COVID-19.
Article in Cardiovascular journal of Africa. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical prediction model for pulmonary thrombosis diagnosis in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2023Article
- [Utility of probability scores for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review].Revista clinica espanola · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to describe the baseline characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with pulmonary embolism, and to examine the Geneva score, pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI), radiological and biochemical findings.
methodsFrom March 2020 to June 2021, the files of 41 COVID-19 patients with pulmonary embolism were accessed.
resultsMean D-dimer value was 6.04 mg/dl and 61% of the patients received at least one dose of anticoagulant treatment. In patients receiving deep venous thrombosis prophlaxis, an optimal D-dimer cut-off point was calculated as 5.69 mg/dl. The area under the curve was 0.753 (
conclusionsAccording to this study, traditional clinical predictive scores had little discriminatory power in these patients, and a higher D-dimer cut-off value should be considered to better diagnose patients for pulmonary embolism.
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.