Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42424666›Full record

ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026

Assessing D-dimer test specificity for pulmonary embolism diagnosis in emergency departments.

Zohair Al Aseri, Faisal Owaid, Yasser Aloufi, Fares Altowariqi, Abdulaziz Almehbash, Younis Alsulami, Saleh Alrawdhan, Khalid Alqahtani, Ayman El-Faham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Zohair Al AseriDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia; Departments of Emergency Medicine and critical care, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Adult Critical Care, Therapeutic Deputyship, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Faisal OwaidDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: F.alsubaie121@gmail.com.
Yasser AloufiDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.
Fares AltowariqiDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz AlmehbashDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.
Younis AlsulamiDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.
Saleh AlrawdhanDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.
Khalid AlqahtaniDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.
Ayman El-FahamDepartment of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening condition that requires rapid and accurate diagnosis in emergency settings. Although Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) is the reference standard, its routine use is limited by cost, radiation exposure, and contrast-related risks. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of D-dimer testing in patients suspected of PE. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, including 1,316 patients who underwent D-dimer testing between January and December 2023. CTPA was used as the reference standard in patients selected for imaging based on clinical assessment. The prevalence of confirmed PE was 8.4%. D-dimer demonstrated high sensitivity (87.4%) and excellent negative predictive value (97.4%), supporting its role as a reliable rule-out tool. However, specificity was low (43.9%) and the positive predictive value was limited (12.5%), reflecting a high rate of false-positive results. Application of the age-adjusted D-dimer threshold reclassified 23 patients, resulting in a modest improvement in specificity from 43.9% to 45.8%, while maintaining diagnostic safety. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed modest discriminative ability (AUC = 0.656). D-dimer levels were significantly associated with increasing age and male sex, while nationality showed no significant effect. In conclusion, D-dimer testing is an effective initial screening tool for excluding PE in emergency departments; however, its low specificity limits its standalone diagnostic value. Integration with clinical prediction rules and age-adjusted thresholds may improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce unnecessary imaging.

Indexed as

CTPAD-dimerDiagnostic accuracyEmergency departmentPulmonary embolism

Identifiers

PMID42424666
PMCPMC13380212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.