 |
|
CLINICIAN'S CORNER
Does This Patient Have Pulmonary Embolism?
Sanjeev D. Chunilal, MB, ChB, FRACP, FRCPA;
John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, MSc, FRACP, FRCPA;
John Attia, MD, PhD, FRCPC;
Massimo Miniati, MD;
Akbar A. Panju, MBChB, FRCPC;
David L. Simel, MD;
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, MD, FRCPC
JAMA. 2003;290:2849-2858.
Context Experienced clinicians' gestalt is useful in estimating the pretest probability for pulmonary embolism and is complementary to diagnostic testing, such as lung scanning. However, it is unclear whether recently developed clinical prediction rules, using explicit features of clinical examination, are comparable with clinicians' gestalt. If so, clinical prediction rules would be powerful tools because they could be used by less-experienced health care professionals to simplify the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Recent studies have shown that the combination of a low pretest probability (using a clinical prediction rule) and a normal result of a D-dimer test reliably excludes pulmonary embolism without the need for further testing.
Objective To evaluate and demonstrate the accuracy of pretest probability assessment for pulmonary embolism using clinical gestalt vs clinical prediction rules.
Data Sources The MEDLINE database was searched for relevant articles published between 1966 and March 2003. Bibliographies of pertinent articles also were scanned for suitable articles.
Study Selection To be included in the analysis, studies were required to have consecutive, unselected patients enrolled; participating physicians in the studies, blinded to the results of diagnostic testing, had to estimate pretest probability of pulmonary embolism; and validated diagnostic methods had to be used to confirm or exclude pulmonary embolism.
Data Extraction Three reviewers independently scanned titles and abstracts for inclusion of studies. An initial MEDLINE search identified 1709 studies, of which 16 involving 8306 patients were included in the final analysis.
Data Synthesis A clinical gestalt strategy was used in 7 studies, and in the low, moderate, and high pretest categories, the rates of pulmonary embolism ranged from 8% to 19%, 26% to 47%, and 46% to 91%, respectively. Clinical prediction rules were used in 10 studies, and 3% to 28%, 16% to 46%, and 38% to 98% in the low, moderate, and high pretest probability groups, respectively, had pulmonary embolism.
Conclusions The clinical gestalt of experienced clinicians and the clinical prediction rules used by physicians of varying experience have shown similar accuracy in discriminating among patients who have a low, moderate, or high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism. We advocate the use of a clinical prediction rule because it has shown to be accurate and can be used by less-experienced clinicians.
Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (Drs Chunilal and Ginsberg); Department of Haematology, The Queen Elisabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, Australia (Dr Chunilal); Department of Haematology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia (Dr Eikelboom); Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia (Dr Attia); Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council of Italy, Pisa (Dr Miniati); Henderson Division, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Hamilton, Ontario (Dr Panju); and Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC (Dr Simel).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Pulmonary Embolism
, , and
JAMA. ;290():2898-2898.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Excluding venous thromboembolism using point of care D-dimer tests in outpatients: a diagnostic meta-analysis
Geersing et al.
BMJ 2009;339:b2990-b2990.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The value of clinical features in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism: systematic review and meta-analysis
West et al.
QJM 2007;100:763-769.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Bayes pulmonary embolism assisted diagnosis: a new expert system for clinical use
Luciani et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2007;24:157-164.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Frequency of Thrombophilia-Related Genetic Variations in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Embolism in an Urban Emergency Department
Kruse et al.
Clin. Chem. 2006;52:1026-1032.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Appropriateness of Diagnostic Management and Outcomes of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Roy et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2006;144:157-164.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pulmonary embolism in hospital practice
Robinson
BMJ 2006;332:156-160.
FULL TEXT
Does This Dyspneic Patient in the Emergency Department Have Congestive Heart Failure?
Wang et al.
JAMA 2005;294:1944-1956.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism
Roy et al.
BMJ 2005;331:259.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Gestalt and the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism: Does Experience Matter?
Kabrhel et al.
Chest 2005;127:1627-1630.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Prediction Rules in Trauma Imaging: Who, How, and Why?
Blackmore
Radiology 2005;235:371-374.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Usefulness of D-Dimer Depending on Clinical Probability and Cutoff Value in Outpatients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Righini et al.
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2483-2487.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Meta-Analysis: Outcomes in Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Managed with Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography
Moores et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:866-874.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Review: clinical gestalt strategies and clinical prediction rules have similar discriminate pretest probabilities of pulmonary embolism
Mehra
Evid. Based Med. 2004;9:155-155.
FULL TEXT
Other articles noted: 14 Nov 2003 to 30 Jan 2004
Evid. Based Nurs. 2004;7:e2-e2.
FULL TEXT
Use Clinical Prediction Rules and D-dimer Testing to Exclude PE
JWatch Emergency Med. 2004;2004:6-6.
FULL TEXT
|
