ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2025
Development of the Pulmonary Embolism Progression (PEP) score for predicting short-term clinical deterioration in intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2025. 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.
- External validation of the PE-SCORE for predicting early clinical deterioration in acute pulmonary embolism using real-world data.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate risk stratification in acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is essential. Current prediction scores lack the ability to forecast impending clinical decline. The Pulmonary Embolism Progression (PEP) score aims to predict short-term clinical deterioration (respiratory failure or hemodynamic instability within 72 h) in patients with intermediate-risk PE. This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed patients with intermediate PE. The outcome of interest was respiratory failure or hemodynamic instability within 72 h. A multivariate logistic regression identified five predictive variables for the final PEP score: use of > 4 L/min of supplemental oxygen above baseline, lactate > 2.0 mmol/L, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) > 40 ng/L, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) < 13 mm, and the combination of central and subsegmental clot. The derivation cohort included 117 patients, and the validation cohort included 70 patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for the derivation cohort was 0.8671 (95% CI: 0.7946, 0.9292), and for the validation cohort, it was 0.9264 (95% CI: 0.8680, 0.9847). A PEP score of 4 points yielded the highest combination of sensitivity (93%) and specificity (65%). Each incremental point increase in the PEP score raised the probability of clinical deterioration by a factor of 1.933. The PEP score is a reliable tool for predicting the likelihood of clinical deterioration in intermediate-risk PE patients within 72 h, potentially aiding in timely clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes.
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.