Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38754880›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Comparison of three diagnostic strategies for suspicion of pulmonary embolism: planar ventilation-perfusion scan (V/Q), CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and single photon emission CT ventilation-perfusion scan (SPECT V/Q): a protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

Romain Le Pennec, Pierre-Yves Le Roux, Philippe Robin, Francis Couturaud, Marc Righini, Grégoire Le Gal, Pierre-Yves Salaun

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02983760 (Comparison of 3 Diagnostic Strategies of Pulmonary Embolism), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02983760 naterminatednot on this map

Comparison of 3 Diagnostic Strategies of Pulmonary Embolism : Planar Ventilation-perfusion Scintigraphy (Planar V/Q Scan), Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA), and V/Q Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, BrestRan2017 to 2024Enrolled611ConditionsPulmonary EmbolismArmsPlanar V/Q-based strategy, CTPA-based strategy, V/Q SPECT-based strategy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Romain Le PennecCHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France romain.lepennec@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8228-0864
Pierre-Yves Le RouxCHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8534-8203
Philippe RobinCHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France.
Francis CouturaudCHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France.
Marc RighiniUniversity of Geneva, Switzerland, Geneva, Switzerland.
Grégoire Le GalOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Pierre-Yves SalaunCHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPulmonary embolism (PE) is a challenge to diagnose and when missed, exposes patients to potentially fatal recurrent events. Beyond CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and planar ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan, single photon emission CT (SPECT) V/Q emerged a new diagnostic modality of scintigraphic acquisition that has been reported to improve diagnostic performances. To date, no management outcome study or randomised trial evaluated an algorithm based on SPECT V/Q for PE diagnosis. We present the design of a randomised multicentre, international management study comparing SPECT V/Q with validated strategies. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe will include a total of 3672 patients with suspected PE requiring chest imaging, randomised into three different groups, each using a different diagnostic strategy based on SPECT V/Q, CTPA and planar V/Q scan. Randomisation will be unbalanced (2:1:1), with twice as many patients in SPECT V/Q arm (n=1836) as in CTPA and planar V/Q arms (n=918 in each). Our primary objective will be to determine whether a diagnostic strategy based on SPECT V/Q is non-inferior to previously validated strategies in terms of diagnostic exclusion safety as assessed by the 3-month risk of thromboembolism in patients with a negative diagnostic workup. Secondary outcomes will be the proportion of patients diagnosed with PE in each arm, patients requiring additional tests, the incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding and the incidence and cause of death in each arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is funded by a grant from Brest University Hospital and by INVENT. The study protocol was approved by Biomedical Research Ethics Committee. The investigator or delegate will obtain signed informed consent from all patients prior to inclusion in the trial. Our results will inform future clinical practice guidelines and solve the current discrepancy between nuclear medicine guidelines and clinical scientific society guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02983760.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyPulmonary EmbolismTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonVentilation-Perfusion ScanFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVentilation-Perfusion Ratiocardiovascular imagingnuclear medicinethromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID38754880
PMCPMC11097801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.