ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Evaluation of the Pulmonary Embolism Comprehensive Screening Scoring (PECSS) using multi-center emergency cohorts.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To verify the scientific, robust and generalizable application of Pulmonary Embolism Comprehensive Screening Scoring (PECSS) in the clinical screening of pulmonary embolism among multi-center emergency cohorts. PECSS were previously derived using emergency cohort from Zhongshan Hospital, with screening performances evaluated and compared to Wells score. In this study, suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) patients from 4 major tertiary hospitals in Shanghai were prospectively enrolled from January to June 2024. Screening performances of PECSS and PECSS with D-Dimer were evaluated and compared to traditional Wells Score (WS) methods among these external validation cohorts. Compared to WS, PECSS achieved low mis-diagnosis rates for all PE severity categories among external validation cohorts. When incorporated with D-Dimer, PECSS demonstrated high sensitivity with acceptable range of specificity. The screening performances of PECSS and PECSS + D-Dimer showed high consistency between the derivation and external validation cohorts, as well as across the 4 external validation centers. The newly developed PECSS and PECSS + D-Dimer screening approaches serve as an effective yet practical tool for the clinical screening of acute PE in emergency setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42749986What 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.