SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of pre-test clinical probability scores for the risk stratification of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary evaluation of pulmonary embolism (PE) is complicated by the presence of various pre-test clinical probability scores (pCPS) with different cut-offs, all equally recommended by guidelines. This lack of consensus has led to practice variability, unnecessary imaging, and worse patient outcomes. We aim to provide more definitive insights through a holistic comparison of available pCPS.
methodsPubMed, Embase and Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for studies evaluating pCPS in patients clinically suspected of PE until June 2023. Risk of bias was evaluated using QUADAS-2. Included pCPS were evaluated based on their diagnostic accuracy in: (1) Ruling-out PE (2) Utilization of imaging, and (3) Differentiating between patients needing d-dimer from imaging. Diagnostic test accuracy indices were synthesized using beta-binomial Bayesian methods.
resultsForty studies (37,027 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Three-tier revised Geneva (RG) and three-tier Wells performed similarly in ruling-out PE (negative likelihood ratio (LR-) [95% credible interval (CI)]: 0·39[0·27-0·58] vs 0·34[0·25-0·45]). However, RG performed better in utilization of imaging (LR + : 6·65[3·75-10·56] vs 5·59[3·7-8·37], p < 0.001) and differentiating between patients needing d-dimer vs imaging (diagnostic odds ratio (DOR): 8·03[4·35-14·1] vs. 7·4[4·65-11·84], p < 0.001). The two-tier Wells score underperformed in all aspects (LR-: 0·56[0·45-0·68], LR + : 2·43[1·81-3·07], DOR: 4·41[2·81-6·43]). PERC demonstrated a reliable point estimate for ruling out PE, albeit with a wide CI (LR-: 0·36[0·17-0·78]).
conclusionsRG outperforms other pCPS for primary evaluation of suspected PE. While the difference is not large, RG's independence from subjective items supports its recommendation over three-tier Wells. Two-tier Wells underperforms significantly compared to the rest of pCPS. PERC shows considerable promise for minimizing unnecessary D-dimer testing in crowded emergency departments; however, more evidence is needed before its definitive recommendation. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023464118).
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.