Cited by 74Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Delay and misdiagnosis in sub-massive and non-massive acute pulmonary embolism

Alonso-Martínez, J.L., Sánchez, F.J. Anniccherico, Echezarreta, M.A. Urbieta·2010·European Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background There is limited information about the extent and clinical importance of the delay in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism.Patients and methods Between 1998 and 2009, all consecutive patients diagnosed of acute pulmonary embolism from a registry of a single department were evaluated. We recorded the start or shift in symptoms as the beginning of pulmonary embolism and the mistaken diagnosis for which the patients had been treated. We evaluated the factors associated with the delay and misdiagnosis and their relation with mortality.Results Overall 375 patients were evaluated. Median age was 75 years, interquartile range (IQR) 15, and female 186 (49%). Median delay was 6 (IQR 12) days. Median Wells score was 4.5 (IQR 3). Delay in diagnosis was longer than 6 days in 50% (95% CI 44-55) of patients, longer than 14 days in 25% (95% CI 21-30) and longer than 21 days in 10% (95% CI 7-13). Misdiagnosis occurred in 50% (95% CI 44-55) of patients. Higher age, more days of delay and the absence of syncope or sudden onset dyspnea were factors associated with misdiagnosis. Follow-up was carried out in 331 patients during a median of 31 (IQR 45) months. 36% (95% CI 33-43) of patients died [median 8 (IQR 29) months]. Higher age, misdiagnosis and a history of cancer were factors associated with mortality. Days of delay were not associated with mortality.Conclusions Delay and misdiagnosis of pulmonary embolism is frequent. Elderly patients and the absence of syncope or sudden onset dyspnea favour the misdiagnosis. Delay in diagnosis does not participate in mortality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejim.2010.04.005

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alonso-Martínez, J. L., Sánchez, F. J. A., & Echezarreta, M. A. U.
Affiliations
Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra (ES)
Corresponding author
Alonso-Martínez, J.L.
Venue
European Journal of Internal Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
278-282
ISSN
0953-6205 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980660460
Cited by
74
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
acute pulmonary embolism, submassive pulmonary embolism, delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis, Wells score, mortality, elderly patients, syncope, cancer history, risk factors
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Diagnosis, Differential, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Humans, Male, Pulmonary Embolism, Syncope, Time Factors, Logistic Models, Statistics, Nonparametric, Delayed Diagnosis

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