ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2023
Bedside exclusion of pulmonary embolism in children without radiation (BEEPER): a national study of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network-Study protocol.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- PERC-Peds rule for bedside exclusion of pulmonary embolism without radiation in children in the USA (BEEPER): a multicentre, prospective, observational, diagnostic accuracy study.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2026Observational
- How I treat pediatric pulmonary embolism.Blood · 2025Review
- Collecting Sociodemographic Data in Pediatric Emergency Research: A Working Group Consensus.Pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC) Peds rule, derived from the PERC rule, was derived to estimate a low pretest probability for pulmonary embolism (PE) in children but has not been prospectively validated. Objective: The objective of this study was to present a protocol for an ongoing multicenter prospective observational study that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of the PERC-Peds rule. Methods: This protocol is identified by the acronym, BEdside Exclusion of Pulmonary Embolism without Radiation in children. The study aims were designed to prospectively validate, or if necessary, refine, the accuracy of PERC-Peds and D-dimer in excluding PE among children with clinical suspicion or testing for PE. Multiple ancillary studies will examine clinical characteristics and epidemiology of the participants. Children aged 4 through 17 years were being enrolled at 21 sites through the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). Patients taking anticoagulant therapy are excluded. PERC-Peds criteria data, clinical gestalt, and demographic information are collected in real time. The criterion standard outcome is image-confirmed venous thromboembolism within 45 days, determined from independent expert adjudication. We assessed interrater reliability of the PERC-Peds, frequency of PERC-Peds use in routine clinical care, and descriptive characteristics of missed eligible and missed patients with PE. Results: Enrollment is currently 60% complete with an anticipated data lock in 2025. Conclusions: This prospective multicenter observational study will not only test whether a set of simple criteria can safely exclude PE without need for imaging but also provide a resource to fill a critical knowledge gap about clinical characteristics of children with suspected and diagnosed 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.