ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2024
External validation of the CHEDDAR score for suspected pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in an independent cohort.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2024. 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.
- Role of Artificial Intelligence in Identifying Vital Biomarkers with Greater Precision in Emergency Departments During Emerging Pandemics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accuracy of the classic scores that help stratify the pretest clinical probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) in SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is low. Therefore, to estimate the risk of PE in these patients, a new set of guidelines must be established. The recently published CHEDDAR score proposes a new diagnostic strategy to reduce the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in non-critically ill SARS-COV-2 patients with suspected PE. According to the nomogram, patients are segregated into low-risk (< 182 points) or high-risk (≥ 182 points) based on the best cut-off value to discard PE in the original cohort. We aimed to externally validate this diagnostic strategy in an independent cohort. We analyzed data from two retrospective cohorts of hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients who underwent a CTPA due to suspicion for PE. CHEDDAR score was applied. As per the CHEDDAR nomogram, patients were classified as having a low or high clinical pre-test probability. Of the 270 patients included, 69 (25.5%) had PE. Applying the CHEDDAR score, 182 (67.4%) patients could have had PE excluded without imaging. Among 58 patients classified as having high clinical pre-test probability, 39 (67.2%) had PE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and AUC were 56%, 90%, 67%, 85%, and 0.783 (95% CI 0.71-0.85), respectively. We provide external validation of the CHEDDAR score in an independent cohort. Even though the CHEDDAR score showed good discrimination capacity, caution is required in patients classified as having low clinical pre-test probability with a D-dimer value > 3000 ng/mL, and a RALE score ≥ 4.
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.