The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of D-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Suspected Deep-Vein Thrombosis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Several diagnostic strategies using ultrasound imaging, measurement of D-dimer, and assessment of clinical probability of disease have proved safe in patients with suspected deep-vein thrombosis, but they have not been compared in randomized trials. METHODS: Outpatients presenting with suspected lower-extremity deep-vein thrombosis were potentially eligible. Using a clinical model, physicians evaluated the patients and categorized them as likely or unlikely to have deep-vein thrombosis. The patients were then randomly assigned to undergo ultrasound imaging alone (control group) or to undergo D-dimer testing (D-dimer group) followed by ultrasound imaging unless the D-dimer test was negative and the patient was considered clinically unlikely to have deep-vein thrombosis, in which case ultrasound imaging was not performed. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty patients were randomly assigned to the control group, and 566 to the D-dimer group. The overall prevalence of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism was 15.7 percent. Among patients for whom deep-vein thrombosis had been ruled out by the initial diagnostic strategy, there were two confirmed venous thromboembolic events in the D-dimer group (0.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 1.5 percent) and six events in the control group (1.4 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.5 to 2.9 percent; P=0.16) during three months of follow-up. The use of D-dimer testing resulted in a significant reduction in the use of ultrasonography, from a mean of 1.34 tests per patient in the control group to 0.78 in the D-dimer group (P=0.008). Two hundred eighteen patients (39 percent) in the D-dimer group did not require ultrasound imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Deep-vein thrombosis can be ruled out in a patient who is judged clinically unlikely to have deep-vein thrombosis and who has a negative D-dimer test. Ultrasound testing can be safely omitted in such patients.
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
Sarin, S. K., Kedarisetty, C. K., Abbas, Z., Amarapurkar, D., Bihari, C., Chan, A. C. Y., Chawla, Y. K., Dokmeci, A. K., Garg, H., Ghazinyan, H., et al. (2014) · Hepatology International · doi:10.1007/s12072-014-9580-2 · Cited by 1,481
Reilly, B. M., & Evans, A. T. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00009 · Cited by 794
D-dimer antigen: current concepts and future prospects
Adam, S. S., Key, N. S., & Greenberg, C. S. (2009) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2008-06-165845 · Cited by 668
Kyrle, P. A., & Eichinger, S. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)71880-8 · Cited by 616
Rodger, M. A., Kahn, S. R., Wells, P. S., Anderson, D. A., Chagnon, I., Le Gal, G., Solymoss, S., Crowther, M., Perrier, A., White, R., et al. (2008) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.080493 · Cited by 581
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wells, P. S., Anderson, D. R., Rodger, M., Forgie, M., Kearon, C., Dreyer, J., Kovacs, G., Mitchell, M., Lewandowski, B., & Kovacs, M. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2003-09-25
- Volume
- 349
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1227-1235
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2167728254
- Cited by
- 1,552
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Evaluation of D-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Suspected Deep-Vein Thrombosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa023153
- The paper
- Wells, P. S., Anderson, D. R., Rodger, M., Forgie, M., Kearon, C., Dreyer, J., Kovacs, G., Mitchell, M., Lewandowski, B., & Kovacs, M. J. (2003). Evaluation of D-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Suspected Deep-Vein Thrombosis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa023153
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.