Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35975482›Full record

ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2022

Evaluation of the "hemoptysis" item in clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.

Héloïse Bannelier, Judith Gorlicki, Andrea Penaloza, Delphine Douillet, Pierre-Marie Roy, Yonathan Freund, Melanie Roussel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of the "hemoptysis" item in clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Héloïse BannelierEmergency Department, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Judith GorlickiEmergency Department, Hôpital Avicenne, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, INSERM U942-MASCOT, Bobigny, France.
Andrea PenalozaEmergency Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Delphine DouilletEmergency Department, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France.
Pierre-Marie RoyEmergency Department, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France.
Yonathan FreundEmergency Department, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0262-3848
Melanie RousselEmergency Department, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2467-8484
Saint-Gobain (France) · FRSorbonne Université · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHemoptysis is not common in pulmonary embolism (PE) and lacks specificity for its diagnosis. However, this item is present in different validated scores that estimate the clinical probability of PE. The relevance of this item in clinical decision rules (CDRs) is not clearly established.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of removing the "hemoptysis" item from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDR in patients with low clinical probability of PE.

designThis was a post hoc analysis of two European prospective cohorts, which included 2968 patients presenting to the ED with a low clinical probability of PE (PROPER and PERCEPIC) and a 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was the false-negative rate of a CDR score without the hemoptysis item. Secondary endpoints included the potential reduction of chest imaging if the item hemoptysis was to be removed and risk stratification of the Geneva and Wells scores without the hemoptysis item.

resultsOf 2968 patients included (mean ± SD age 46 ± 18 years, 53% female), 87 patients (3%) had a PE diagnosed at 3 months. A total of 2908 were followed-up at 3 months and analyzed. Using the PERC rule with and without the hemoptysis item, there were 13 and 14 missed cases of PE, respectively (failure rate 0.45% [95% CI 0.25%-0.78%] and 0.48% [95% CI 0.27%-0.82%]). Using the YEARS strategy, there were 11 missed PE cases with or without the hemoptysis item (false-negative rate 0.57% [95% CI 0.30%-1.05%]). With the PERC and YEARS rule, removing the hemoptysis item would have led to a 1% reduction in chest imaging. The PEGeD strategy was not modified by the removal of the hemoptysis item.

conclusionsThe hemoptysis item could be safely removed from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDRs. However, there was no subsequent clinically relevant reduction of chest imaging.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision RulesPulmonary EmbolismAdultEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation ProductsHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedFibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Productscomputed tomography pulmonary angiographyD-dimeremergency departmentemergency medicinehemoptysisPEGeDPERCprobability scorespulmonary embolismrevised GenevaWellsYEARS

Identifiers

PMID35975482
OpenAlexW4288748935

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.