ArticleThe Permanente journal2022
Variation in Positivity Rates of Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiograms for the Evaluation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Among Emergency Department Physicians.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Based Pulmonary Embolism Detection: The Added Value of a False-Positive Reduction Module over a Region Proposal Network.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Using a transformer language model to curate a pulmonary embolism dataset from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV: MIMIC-IV-Ext-PE.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Efficacy and influencing factors of thrombolytic therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism complicated y pulmonary arterial hypertension.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Correlation between decreased PaCOFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- ClotCatcher: a novel natural language model to accurately adjudicate venous thromboembolism from radiology reports.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- CTPA ordering trends in local emergency departments: are they increasing and did they increase as a result of COVID-19?Emergency radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is an imaging study for which there is substantial evidence for its overuse in the evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Prior literature has reported low positive PE rates, but the variability in positive rates among the ordering physicians has not been as well studied. The purpose of this study was to evaluate variation in ordering and positive rates among physicians in an emergency department (ED) within an integrated health care system.This study was based in a single ED that is part of a geographically isolated integrated health care system. We reviewed the patient records for all patients who underwent a CTPA for the evaluation for acute PE in the ED between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. For each CTPA examination, we recorded the ordering ED physician, serum d-dimer value (mcg/mL), if any, and the results of the CTPA.Review of CTPAs over the 2-year period revealed 1380 CTPAs ordered by 23 ED physicians with a range of 25-141 studies per physician (mean of 60 + 31 CTPAs). The overall positive rate for PE was 6.9%. Individual ED physician positivity rates showed wide variability ranging from 0% to 18.4% (mean positive rate 7.6 + 4.4%). The results of this study confirm the need for greater adherence to existing guidelines using clinical decision rules and d-dimer testing when appropriate among all ED physicians but especially those who order a greater number of studies and have low rates for positive PE.
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.