Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Comparison of the effectiveness of clinical judgment, wells score and revised geneva score in suspected pulmonary embolism.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShortness of breath and chest pain are the most common presenting symptoms of pulmonary embolism (PE); however, these findings lack both sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, clinical probability assessment remains a key component in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected PE. Clinical prediction rules such as the Wells and Revised Geneva scores are widely used to estimate pre-test probability.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare emergency physicians' clinical judgment with the Wells and Revised Geneva scores in predicting pulmonary embolism in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected PE.
methodsThis prospective dual-center study included patients presenting to the emergency departments of two tertiary care hospitals with suspected PE. The evaluating emergency physician first assessed the clinical probability of PE (low, intermediate, or high) based solely on clinical judgment. Subsequently, the Wells and Revised Geneva scores were calculated independently by a second physician who was blinded to the initial clinical assessment. The diagnostic performance of clinical judgment, Wells score, and Revised Geneva score was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsA total of 248 patients with suspected PE were included in the study. Pulmonary embolism was confirmed in 38 patients (15.3%). Clinical judgment showed a numerically higher AUC compared with both the Wells and Revised Geneva scores. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.834 for clinical judgment, 0.766 for the Wells score, and 0.757 for the Revised Geneva score.
conclusionIn patients presenting with suspected pulmonary embolism, emergency physicians clinical judgment showed favorable diagnostic discrimination and a numerically higher AUC than the Wells and Revised Geneva scores. These findings suggest that clinical assessment remains a valuable component of the diagnostic approach to suspected PE.
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.