ArticleAnnals of thoracic medicine
The diagnostic accuracy of perfusion-only scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the era of COVID-19: A single-center study of 434 patients.
Article in Annals of thoracic medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antenatal Pulmonary Embolism Diagnostics in Pregnant Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Community Hospitals.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion (Q)-only studies in the absence of ventilation images. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Q-only imaging in the pandemic era.
methodsPatients who underwent Q-only imaging for pulmonary embolism between March 2020 and February 2021 were analyzed. Patients who underwent lung quantification analysis were excluded. Q-only test results were reported as per modified PIOPED II criteria and single positron emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) imaging was performed as needed. Patients were considered concordant or discordant by correlating the Q-only results with CT angiogram (CTA) or clinical diagnosis made through chart review. The diagnostic accuracy was calculated after excluding intermediate probability and nondiagnostic studies.
resultsFour hundred and thirty-four patients were identified. One hundred and twenty-eight patients (29.4%) underwent ultrasound Doppler, 37 patients (8.5%) underwent CTA, and 16 patients (3.6%) underwent both. After excluding patients with intermediate probability or nondiagnostic studies and who did not have follow-up (a total of 87 patients [20%]), 347 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. The combined planar and SPECT/CT sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% (72.2%-93.9% confidence interval [CI]) and 98.7% (96.9%-98.6% CI), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Q-only imaging was 89.1% (77.3%-95.1% CI) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.2% (96.4%-99% CI). The sensitivity with SPECT/CT reached 100% (CI: 71.5%-100%) with a specificity of 92.3% (CI: 64%-99.8%). The PPV was 85.7% (CI: 62.1%-95.6%) and the NPV was 100%.
conclusionQ-only imaging provides clinically acceptable results. The sensitivity of the Q-only scan is increased when coupled with SPECT/CT.
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.