Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Prediction Rule to Identify Low-Risk Patients With Pulmonary Embolism

Aujesky, Drahomir, Obrosky, D. Scott, Stone, Roslyn A., Auble, Thomas E., Perrier, Arnaud, Cornuz, Jacques, Roy, Pierre-Marie, Fine, Michael J.·2006·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A simple prognostic model could help identify patients with pulmonary embolism who are at low risk of death and are candidates for outpatient treatment. METHODS: We randomly allocated 15,531 retrospectively identified inpatients who had a discharge diagnosis of pulmonary embolism from 186 Pennsylvania hospitals to derivation (67%) and internal validation (33%) samples. We derived our rule to predict 30-day mortality using classification tree analysis and patient data routinely available at initial examination as potential predictor variables. We used data from a European prospective study to externally validate the rule among 221 inpatients with pulmonary embolism. We determined mortality and nonfatal adverse medical outcomes across derivation and validation samples. RESULTS: Our final model consisted of 10 patient factors (age > or = 70 years; history of cancer, heart failure, chronic lung disease, chronic renal disease, and cerebrovascular disease; and clinical variables of pulse rate > or = 110 beats/min, systolic blood pressure < 100 mm Hg, altered mental status, and arterial oxygen saturation < 90%). Patients with none of these factors were defined as low risk. The 30-day mortality rates for low-risk patients were 0.6%, 1.5%, and 0% in the derivation, internal validation, and external validation samples, respectively. The rates of nonfatal adverse medical outcomes were less than 1% among low-risk patients across all study samples. CONCLUSIONS: This simple prediction rule accurately identifies patients with pulmonary embolism who are at low risk of short-term mortality and other adverse medical outcomes. Prospective validation of this rule is important before its implementation as a decision aid for outpatient treatment.

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.166.2.169

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Aujesky, D., Obrosky, D. S., Stone, R. A., Auble, T. E., Perrier, A., Cornuz, J., Roy, P.-M., & Fine, M. J.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2006-01-23
Volume
166
Issue
2
Pages
169
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023196784
Cited by
177
References
1
FWCI
11.62
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: A Prediction Rule to Identify Low-Risk Patients With Pulmonary Embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.166.2.169
The paper
Aujesky, D., Obrosky, D. S., Stone, R. A., Auble, T. E., Perrier, A., Cornuz, J., Roy, P.-M., & Fine, M. J. (2006). A Prediction Rule to Identify Low-Risk Patients With Pulmonary Embolism. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.2.169

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.