Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Use of a Clinical Decision Rule in Combination With D-Dimer Concentration in Diagnostic Workup of Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Prospective Management Study

Kruip, Marieke J. H. A., Slob, Marjan J., Schijen, Joost H. E. M., van der Heul, Cees, Büller, Harry R.·2002·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We designed a diagnostic strategy, based on clinical probability and D-dimer concentration, to select patients who were unlikely to have pulmonary embolism (PE), before further diagnostic workup was performed. The utility and safety of this strategy were evaluated in a prospective management study. METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected PE had D-dimer testing and clinical probability assessment with a clinical decision rule. Patients with a low probability and a normal D-dimer concentration (<500 ng/mL) were considered not to have PE, and further diagnostic testing and anticoagulant therapy were withheld. In patients with a low probability and elevated D-dimer level or with a moderate or high probability, bilateral compression ultrasonography of the legs was performed. If deep venous thrombosis was detected, venous thromboembolism was diagnosed. If compression ultrasonography was normal, pulmonary angiography was performed. All patients were followed up for 3 months. RESULTS: Of the 234 consecutive patients, 26% had the combination of a low probability and normal D-dimer level. During the follow-up period, none of these patients died and 3 patients had recurrent complaints of PE. In these 3 patients, PE was excluded by objective testing. The 3-month thromboembolic risk was therefore 0% (95% confidence interval, 0%-6%). The prevalence of PE in the entire population was 22%. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a low clinical probability and a normal D-dimer concentration appears to be a safe method to exclude PE, with a high clinical utility, and is readily accepted by clinicians.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.162.14.1631

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 194

Metadata

Authors
Kruip, M. J. H. A., Slob, M. J., Schijen, J. H. E. M., van der Heul, C., & Büller, H. R.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2002-07-22
Volume
162
Issue
14
Pages
1631
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036590735
Cited by
194
References
0
FWCI
10.87
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: Use of a Clinical Decision Rule in Combination With D-Dimer Concentration in Diagnostic Workup of Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Prospective Management Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.162.14.1631
The paper
Kruip, M. J. H. A., Slob, M. J., Schijen, J. H. E. M., van der Heul, C., & Büller, H. R. (2002). Use of a Clinical Decision Rule in Combination With D-Dimer Concentration in Diagnostic Workup of Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Prospective Management Study. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.162.14.1631

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.