ArticleERJ open research2024
Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in patients with haemoptysis: the POPEIHE study.
Article in ERJ open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To determine the prevalence and characteristics of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients presenting with haemoptysis. Additionally, we assessed the efficiency and failure rates of different clinical diagnostic algorithms for PE in this patient population. Methods: We enrolled consecutive adult patients who presented to nine Italian emergency departments with haemoptysis as the primary complaint. PE diagnosis was ruled out in patients with a low pre-test probability in combination with a negative age-adjusted D-dimer (referred to as the "age-adjusted" D-dimer strategy), a negative computed tomography pulmonary angiography or when a clear alternative source of bleeding was identified, along with negative findings for venous thromboembolism during a 30-day follow-up. Results: A total of 546 patients were included in the study. The prevalence of PE, including the 30-day follow-up, was 4.2% (95% CI 2.7-6.3%). The majority of these cases (78%) exhibited distal (segmental or subsegmental) emboli and there were no PE-related fatalities. The "age-adjusted" D-dimer strategy initially excluded PE in 24% of patients (95% CI 21-28%), with a failure rate of 0.8% (95% CI 0.0-4.1%). Retrospectively applied, the "clinical probability-adjusted" D-dimer strategies, specifically the YEARS and Pulmonary Embolism Graduated d-Dimer (PEGeD) algorithms, excluded PE in a significantly higher proportion (30% and 32%, respectively) compared with the "age-adjusted" D-dimer strategy (p<0.05 for both), with similar failure rates. Conclusions: PE is infrequent among patients presenting with haemoptysis, showing segmental or subsegmental emboli distribution. The "clinical probability-adjusted" D-dimer strategies seem to have significantly higher efficiency compared with the "age-adjusted" strategy.
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.