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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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 4 clinical decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort study. | LitMetric

Background: Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) are available to exclude acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but they have not been directly compared.

Objective: To directly compare the performance of 4 CDRs (Wells rule, revised Geneva score, simplified Wells rule, and simplified revised Geneva score) in combination with d-dimer testing to exclude PE.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 7 hospitals in the Netherlands.

Patients: 807 consecutive patients with suspected acute PE.

Intervention: The clinical probability of PE was assessed by using a computer program that calculated all CDRs and indicated the next diagnostic step. Results of the CDRs and d-dimer tests guided clinical care.

Measurements: Results of the CDRs were compared with the prevalence of PE identified by computed tomography or venous thromboembolism at 3-month follow-up.

Results: Prevalence of PE was 23%. The proportion of patients categorized as PE-unlikely ranged from 62% (simplified Wells rule) to 72% (Wells rule). Combined with a normal d-dimer result, the CDRs excluded PE in 22% to 24% of patients. The total failure rates of the CDR and d-dimer combinations were similar (1 failure, 0.5% to 0.6% [upper-limit 95% CI, 2.9% to 3.1%]). Even though 30% of patients had discordant CDR outcomes, PE was not detected in any patient with discordant CDRs and a normal d-dimer result.

Limitation: Management was based on a combination of decision rules and d-dimer testing rather than only 1 CDR combined with d-dimer testing.

Conclusion: All 4 CDRs show similar performance for exclusion of acute PE in combination with a normal d-dimer result. This prospective validation indicates that the simplified scores may be used in clinical practice.

Primary Funding Source: Academic Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Rijnstate Hospital, Leiden University Medical Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center, and Maasstad Hospital.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00002DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

medical center
20
wells rule
16
decision rules
12
normal d-dimer
12
university medical
12
clinical decision
8
acute pulmonary
8
pulmonary embolism
8
prospective cohort
8
cdrs
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!