ArticleMedicine2025
Diagnostic accuracy of the Geneva clinical scale for diagnostic prediction of pulmonary embolism in adults aged 18 and older admitted between 2009 and 2020 with suspected pulmonary embolism at a Third-Level Institution in Colombia: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 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.
- Pulmonary embolism consensus.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the overall applicability of the Geneva scale for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in adults aged 18 and older. A retrospective cohort study with diagnostic test analysis was conducted on patients in the emergency department or hospitalized between 2009 and 2020 with suspected pulmonary embolism at a Third-Level Institution in Colombia. Local study. The original and simplified Geneva scores were applied to 1237 subjects aged 18 and older with suspected pulmonary embolism and compared with confirmatory results from pulmonary angiography. All necessary variables for constructing the original and simplified Geneva rules were recorded, and calculations for sensitivity (S), specificity (E), likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed. The Geneva original score exhibited an S, E, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve of 60%, 54%, 1.3, 0.728, and 0.506, respectively. The simplified Geneva score showed 59%, 57%, 1.4, 0.7, and 0.546 for S, E, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve, respectively. The use of the original or simplified Geneva score in our population may not be useful for a diagnostic approach to pulmonary embolism. Both scales demonstrate almost negligible discriminatory capacity, necessitating the evaluation of other standardized clinical decision rules to assess the diagnosis and pretest probability of pulmonary thromboembolism.
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.