The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Does This Patient Have Deep Vein Thrombosis?
Abstract
CONTEXT: Outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) have nonspecific signs and symptoms. Missed DVT diagnosis may result in fatal pulmonary embolism. Since many patients may have DVT, a selective and efficient diagnostic process is needed. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review trials that determined the prevalence of DVT using clinical prediction rules either with or without D-dimer, for the diagnosis of DVT. DATA SOURCES: English- and French-language studies were identified from MEDLINE from 1990 to July 2004 and supplemented by a review of all relevant bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that prospectively enrolled consecutive, unselected outpatients with suspected DVT and applied clinical prediction rules before D-dimer testing or diagnostic imaging. All studies included sufficient information to allow the calculation of the prevalence of DVT for at least 1 of the 3 clinical probability estimates (low, moderate, or high). We required that patients be followed up for a minimum 3-month period. Unless the clinical model incorporated prior DVT, studies were excluded if patients with a history of prior DVT were enrolled. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently reviewed and abstracted data for estimating the prevalence of DVT, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) of D-dimer in each of the 3 clinical probability estimates. Data for the D-dimer in all studies were pooled and analyzed as high-sensitivity/low-specificity test or a moderate-sensitivity/moderate-specificity test. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen studies involving more than 8000 patients used 1 clinical prediction rule for diagnosing DVT, of which 11 incorporated D-dimer testing in the diagnostic algorithm. The prevalence of DVT in the low, moderate, and high clinical probability groups was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.0%-8.0%), 17% (95% CI, 13%-23%), and 53% (95% CI, 44%-61%), respectively. The overall prevalence of DVT was 19% (95% CI, 16%-23%). Pooling all studies, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative LRs of D-dimer testing in the low probability group were 88% (95% CI, 81%-92%), 72% (95% CI, 65%-78%), and 0.18% (95% CI, 0.12-0.18); in the moderate probability group: 90% (95% CI, 80%-95%), 58% (95% CI, 49%-67%), and 0.19% (95% CI, 0.11-0.32); and in the high probability group: 92% (95% CI, 85%-96%), 45% (95% CI, 37%-52%), and 0.16% (95% CI, 0.09-0.30). The LRs for a normal result on a high or moderately sensitive D-dimer assay among patients with: (1) low clinical suspicion were 0.10 (95% CI, 0.03-0.37) and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.12-0.31); (2) moderate clinical suspicion were 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.21) and 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.39); and (3) high clinical suspicion were 0.07 (95% CI, 0.03-0.18) and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy for DVT improves when clinical probability is estimated before diagnostic tests. Patients with low clinical probability on the predictive rule have prevalence of DVT of less than 5%. In low-probability patients with negative D-dimer results, diagnosis of DVT can be excluded without ultrasound; in patients with high clinical suspicion for DVT, results should not affect clinical decisions.
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
Cited by
Bates, S. M., Jaeschke, R., Stevens, S. M., Goodacre, S., Wells, P. S., Stevenson, M. D., Kearon, C., Schunemann, H. J., Crowther, M., Pauker, S. G., et al. (2012) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.11-2299 · Cited by 686
Self-citationKearon, C., Ginsberg, J. S., & Hirsh, J. (1998) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-129-12-199812150-00009 · Cited by 489
Needleman, L., Cronan, J. J., Lilly, M. P., Merli, G. J., Adhikari, S., Hertzberg, B. S., DeJong, M. R., Streiff, M. B., & Meissner, M. H. (2018) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.117.030687 · Cited by 322
The diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism
Wells, P., & Anderson, D. (2013) · Hematology · doi:10.1182/asheducation-2013.1.457 · Cited by 70
Self-citationInjecting drug use, the skin and vasculature
Robertson, R., Broers, B., & Harris, M. (2021) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15283 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Wells, P. S.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2006-01-11
- Volume
- 295
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 199
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2019095425
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.96
- 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: Does This Patient Have Deep Vein Thrombosis? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.295.2.199
- The paper
- Wells, P. S. (2006). Does This Patient Have Deep Vein Thrombosis? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.2.199
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.