A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Performance of helical computed tomography in unselected outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism. | LitMetric

Performance of helical computed tomography in unselected outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

Ann Intern Med

Medical Clinic 1, Department of Internal Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, Rue Micheli-du-Crest 24, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland.

Published: July 2001

Background: Helical computed tomography (CT) is commonly used to diagnose pulmonary embolism, although its operating characteristics have been insufficiently evaluated.

Objective: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of helical CT in suspected pulmonary embolism.

Design: Observational study.

Setting: Emergency department of a teaching and community hospital.

Patients: 299 patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism and a plasma D -dimer level greater than 500 microgram/L.

Intervention: Pulmonary embolism was established by using a validated algorithm that included clinical assessment, lower-limb compression ultrasonography, lung scanning, and pulmonary angiography.

Measurements: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of helical CT and interobserver agreement. Helical CT scans were withheld from clinicians and were read 3 months after acquisition by radiologists blinded to all clinical data.

Results: 118 patients (39%) had pulmonary embolism. In 12 patients (4%), 2 of whom had pulmonary embolism, results of helical CT were inconclusive. For patients with conclusive results, sensitivity of helical CT was 70% (95% CI, 62% to 78%) and specificity was 91% (CI, 86% to 95%). Interobserver agreement was high (kappa = 0.823 to 0.902). The false-negative rate was lower for helical CT used after initial negative results on ultrasonography than for helical CT alone (21% vs. 30%). Use of helical CT after normal results on initial ultrasonography and nondiagnostic results on lung scanning had a false-negative rate of only 5% and a false-positive rate of only 7%.

Conclusion: Helical CT should not be used alone for suspected pulmonary embolism but could replace angiography in combined strategies that include ultrasonography and lung scanning.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-2-200107170-00008DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pulmonary embolism
28
suspected pulmonary
16
lung scanning
12
helical
10
pulmonary
9
helical computed
8
computed tomography
8
sensitivity specificity
8
helical suspected
8
ultrasonography lung
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!