ArticleHeliyon2024
Acute pulmonary embolism pretest probability estimation by d-dimer test, our modified, new ECG score and clinical prediction rules.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- TRIAGE Scoring System: Advancing ECG-Based Early Detection of Acute Pulmonary Embolism.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We investigated whether a sufficiently sensitive D-dimer test could exclude acute pulmonary embolism (acPE) as a stand-alone diagnostic test and compared our previously published, modified ECG score with the Wells and Geneva scores in the estimation of acPE pretest probability. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 345 patients who underwent chest CT angiography (CTA) for the suspicion of acPE. The pretest probability of acPE was assessed in 120 D-dimer negative [DD (-)] and 225 D-dimer positive [DD (+)] patients. Results: Chest CTA verified acPE in 57/345 (16.5 %) patients and in 1/120 (0.8 %) DD (-) patient. In DD (-) patients the test accuracy (TA) and specificity (SP) of the ECG score (98 %, 99 %) were better than those of the Wells score (92.5 %, 92.4 %) (p = 0.063 and p < 0.05 respectively) and the Geneva score (76.7 %, 76.5 %) (p < 0.001 for both), the Wells score TA and SP were greater than those of the Geneva score (p < 0.001 for both). In DD (+) patients the SPs, TAs and positive predictive values (PPV) of the ECG score (94 %, 78.6 %, 69 %) and the Wells score (91.8 %, 75.1 %, 48 %) were greater than those of the Geneva score (71.3 %, 64.9 %, 38.2 %) (p < 0.001 for both SP and TA respectively, and p < 0.001 for PPV of the ECG score vs. the Geneva score and p < 0.05 for PPV of the Wells score vs. Geneva score), their sensitivities (SE) (36.4 %, 23.6 %) were less than that of the Geneva score (47.5 %) (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 respectively). The ECG score's TA in a trend, its SE and PPV were significantly (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001) better than those of the Wells score. Conclusion: In contrast to the current guidelines, a stand-alone high sensitivity DD (-) test, without prediction rules, could reliably exclude acPE. Our ECG score slightly outperformed the Wells score, the ECG score and Wells score far outperformed the Geneva score in the estimation of acPE pretest probability. An acPE diagnosis with the ECG score, in addition to the supportive diagnosis with the clinical prediction rules, may further increase the chance of true DD positivity.
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.