SynthesisPloS one2024
Diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score alone or with D-dimer for acute aortic syndromes: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic strategies for suspected acute aortic syndrome: systematic review, meta-analysis, decision-analytic modelling and value of information analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of alternative biomarkers for acute aortic syndrome: a systematic review.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Time Is Aorta: Can Artificial Intelligence Improve Surgical Timelines in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection? A Comprehensive Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Deep learning in the early diagnosis of acute aortic dissection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Rapid bedside multimodal ultrasound screening for acute type A aortic dissection: a perspective.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- A missed diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome is associated with ischaemic ECG changes and an initial suspicion of myocardial infarction: a retrospective observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Artificial intelligence-driven diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection: integrating imaging, biomarkers, and clinical workflows-a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- The Role of Biomarkers and Clinical Prediction Tools in the Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes: A Literature-Based Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- A Narrative Review of Biomarkers and Imaging in the Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Decision analytical modelling of strategies for investigating suspected acute aortic syndrome.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2024Article
- Acute aortic syndrome.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- A case report: Efficacy of thoracic MRA for ischemic stroke due to acute aortic dissection.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) used alone or in combination with D-dimer for detecting acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of AAS.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2024. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched. All diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the use of ADD-RS alone or with D-Dimer for diagnosing AAS compared with a reference standard test (e.g. computer tomographic angiography (CTA), ECG-gated CTA, echocardiography, magnetic resonance angiography, operation, or autopsy) were included. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using QUADAS-2 tool. Data were synthesised using hierarchical meta-analysis models.
resultsWe selected 13 studies from the 2017 citations identified, including six studies evaluating combinations of ADD-RS alongside D-dimer>500ng/L. Summary sensitivities and specificities (95% credible interval) were: ADD-RS>0 94.6% (90%, 97.5%) and 34.7% (20.7%, 51.2%), ADD-RS>1 43.4% (31.2%, 57.1%) and 89.3% (80.4%, 94.8%); ADD RS>0 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 99.8% (98.7%, 100%) and 21.8% (12.1%, 32.6%); ADD RS>1 or D-Dimer>500ng/L 98.3% (94.9%, 99.5%) and 51.4% (38.7%, 64.1%); ADD RS>1 or ADD RS = 1 with D-dimer>500ng/L 93.1% (87.1%, 96.3%) and 67.1% (54.4%, 77.7%).
conclusionsCombinations of ADD-RS and D-dimer can be used to select patients with suspected AAS for imaging with a range of trade-offs between sensitivity (93.1% to 99.8%) and specificity (21.8% to 67.1%).
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.