The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Ward: A Simple Score
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a simple standardized clinical score to stratify emergency ward patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) into groups with a high, intermediate, or low probability of PE to improve and simplify the diagnostic approach. METHODS: Analysis of a database of 1090 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency ward for suspected PE in whom diagnosis of PE was ruled in or out by a standard diagnostic algorithm. Logistic regression was used to predict clinical parameters associated with PE. RESULTS: A total of 296 (27%) of 1090 patients were found to have PE. The optimal estimate of clinical probability was based on 8 variables: recent surgery, previous thromboembolic event, older age, hypocapnia, hypoxemia, tachycardia, band atelectasis, or elevation of a hemidiaphragm on chest x-ray film. A probability score was calculated by adding points assigned to these variables. A cutoff score of 4 best identified patients with low probability of PE. A total of 486 patients (49%) had a low clinical probability of PE (score </=4), of which 50 (10.3%) had a proven PE. The prevalence of PE was 38% in the 437 patients with an intermediate probability (score of 5-8; n = 437) and 81% in the 63 patients with a high probability (score >/=9). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical score, based on easily available and objective variables, provides a standardized assessment of the clinical probability of PE. Applying this score to emergency ward patients suspected of having PE could allow a more effective diagnostic process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical data analysis in the computer age
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.253.5018.390 · Cited by 1,192
Cited by
Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department: The Revised Geneva Score
Le Gal, G., Righini, M., Roy, P.-M., Sanchez, O., Aujesky, D., Bounameaux, H., & Perrier, A. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00004 · Cited by 1,121
Self-citationClinical Decision Rules for Excluding Pulmonary Embolism: A Meta-analysis
Lucassen, W., Geersing, G.-J., Erkens, P. M. G., Reitsma, J. B., Moons, K. G. M., Büller, H., & van Weert, H. C. (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-7-201110040-00007 · Cited by 323
GANTNER, D., GE, J., LI, L., ANTIC, N., WINDLER, S., WONG, K., HEELEY, E., HUANG, S., CUI, P., ANDERSON, C., et al. (2010) · Respirology · doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2010.01797.x · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Wicki, J., Perneger, T. V., Junod, A. F., Bounameaux, H., & Perrier, A.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2001-01-08
- Volume
- 161
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 92
- ISSN
- 0003-9926
- OpenAlex
- W2066744295
- Cited by
- 589
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Ward: A Simple Score. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.161.1.92
- The paper
- Wicki, J., Perneger, T. V., Junod, A. F., Bounameaux, H., & Perrier, A. (2001). Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Ward: A Simple Score. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.1.92
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.