ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2025
Failure rate of D-dimer testing in patients with high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism: Ancillary analysis of three European studies.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Failure rate of D-dimer testing in patients with high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism: Ancillary analysis of three European studies.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Management of Asymptomatic Pulmonary Embolism: A Predictive Model Integrating Inflammatory Markers and Clinical Characteristics in Patients With Deep Vein Thrombosis.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with a high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism (PE), the high prevalence can lower the D-dimer negative predictive value and increase the risk of diagnostic failure. It is therefore recommended that these high-risk patients should undergo chest imaging without D-dimer testing although no evidence supports this recommendation.
objectiveThe objective was to evaluate the safety of ruling out PE based on D-dimer testing among patients with a high clinical probability of PE.
methodsThis was a post hoc analysis of three European studies (PROPER, MODIGLIANI, and TRYSPEED). Patients were included if they presented a high clinical probability of PE (according to either the Wells or the revised Geneva score) and underwent D-dimer testing. The D-dimer-based strategy ruled out PE if the D-dimer level was below the age-adjusted threshold (i.e., <500 ng/mL in patients aged less than 50 and age × 10 ng/mL in patients older than 50). The primary endpoint was a thromboembolic event in patients with negative D-dimer either at index visit or at 3-month follow-up. A Bayesian approach estimated the probability that the failure rate of the D-dimer-based strategy was below 2% given observed data.
resultsAmong the 12,300 patients included in the PROPER, MODIGLIANI, and TRYSPEED studies, 651 patients (median age 68 years, 60% female) had D-dimer testing and a high clinical probability of PE and were included in the study. PE prevalence was 31.3%. Seventy patients had D-dimer levels under the age-adjusted threshold, and none of them had a PE after follow-up (failure rate 0.0% [95% CI 0.0%-6.5%]). Bayesian analysis reported a credible interval of 0.0%-4.1%, with a 76.2% posterior probability of a failure rate below 2%.
conclusionsIn this study, ruling out PE in high-risk patients based on D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold was safe, with no missed PE. However, the large CI of the primary endpoint precludes a definitive conclusion.
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.