ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Validation of the PEACE score for predicting abnormal echocardiographic findings in pulmonary embolism patients.
Article in BMC emergency 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.
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition requiring rapid risk stratification for optimal management. The Pulmonary Embolism Advanced Cardiac Evaluation (PEACE) Score is a novel tool integrating clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters to assess disease severity. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between PEACE Score and echocardiographic abnormalities in PE patients, and to determine its effectiveness as a rapid risk assessment tool in emergency settings.
methodsBetween June 2020 and June 2024, 120 patients were prospectively screened and enrolled in the study after being diagnosed with pulmonary embolism via CT angiography in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into three groups according to PEACE score as low risk (< 3 points, n = 42), intermediate risk (3-5 points, n = 52) and high risk (> 5 points, n = 26). Echocardiographic findings were not used for stratification but rather analyzed as outcome variables to assess the discriminative validity of the PEACE Score. Demographic data, laboratory findings and echocardiographic parameters were recorded. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Follow-up from 3 months to 6 months was evaluated and mortality rates at the end of 1 year were determined.
resultsPEACE Score was strongly correlated with echocardiographic abnormalities (r = 0.685, p < 0.001) and inflammatory markers, including CRP (r = 0.524, p < 0.001). The PEACE Score had the highest diagnostic value for predicting echocardiographic abnormalities, with an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.90, p < 0.001). Specifically, in predicting right ventricular dysfunction, the PEACE Score achieved an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77-0.93, p < 0.001). A cutoff of > 5 points showed a sensitivity of 84.6% and specificity of 79.2% for detecting severe echocardiographic abnormalities. One-year survival rates were 45% in the high-risk group, 65% in the intermediate-risk group, and 85% in the low-risk group. Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed significant differences in survival among risk groups (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe PEACE Score demonstrated a strong association with echocardiographic abnormalities and patient survival in emergency department PE cases. These findings suggest that PEACE may serve as a valuable tool for rapid risk stratification, aiding emergency physicians in early clinical decision-making. Specifically, high PEACE Scores were associated with a greater need for thrombolytic therapy and ICU admission, suggesting its potential utility in guiding treatment escalation and resource allocation in critically ill PE patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.