ArticlePloS one2023
Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.
Article in PloS one, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- D-dimer cut-off value for pulmonary embolism diagnosis in COVID-19.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism in COVID-19.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Pulmonary embolism in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Short- and long-term clinical outcomes.Thrombosis update · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19.
methodsWe included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician's clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was ≥1000 ug/L, or ≥500 ug/L in case of ≥1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort).
results1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p<0.001), even after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics (adjusted OR 8.45 (95%CI 2.61-27.42, p<0.001) for PE diagnosis). In multivariate analysis, D-dimer (OR 1.09 per 1000 μg/L increase, 95%CI 1.06-1.13, p<0.001) and CRP >100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37-5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE.
conclusionIn ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one 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.