ArticleClinical cardiology2024
Differentiating electrocardiographic indications of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism: A cross-sectional study in Southern Iran from 2015 to 2020.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Integration of ECG and Molecular Biomarkers in Pulmonary Embolism.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Prevalence of Electrocardiographic Abnormalities in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Differentiating electrocardiographic indications of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism: A cross-sectional study in Southern Iran from 2015 to 2020.Clinical cardiology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough using electrocardiogram (ECG) for pulmonary embolism (PE) risk stratification has shown mixed results, it is currently used as supplementary evidence in risk stratification. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess and compare ECG findings of massive and submassive PE versus segmental PE.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 250 hospitalized patients with a confirmed diagnosis of acute PE from 2015 to 2020 in Southern Iran. Demographic variables, clinical data, troponin levels, on-admission ECG findings, echocardiography findings, and ECG findings 24 h after receiving anticoagulants or thrombolytics were extracted.
resultsPatients diagnosed with submassive or massive PE exhibited significantly higher rates of right axis deviation (p = .010), abnormal ST segment (p < .0001), S1Q3T3 pattern (p < .0001), inverted T wave in leads V1-V3 (p < .0001), inverted T wave in leads V4-V6 (p < .0001), and inverted T wave in leads V1-V6 (p < .0001). In a multivariable model, inverted T wave in leads V1-V3, inverted T wave in leads V4-V6, pulse rate, and positive troponin test were the statistically independent variables for predicting submassive or massive PE. Furthermore, inverted T wave in leads V1-V3 (sensitivity: 85%, specificity: 95%, accuracy: 93%, AUC: 0.902) and troponin levels (sensitivity: 72%, specificity: 86%, accuracy: 83%, AUC: 0.792) demonstrated the best diagnostic test performance for discriminating submassive or massive PE from segmental PE.
conclusionIn addition to clinical rules, ECG can serve as an ancillary tool for assessing more invasive testing and earlier aggressive treatments among patients with PE, as it can provide valuable information for the diagnosis and risk stratification of submassive or massive 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.