Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 642

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism

Open access
Perrier, Arnaud, Roy, Pierre-Marie, Sanchez, Olivier, Le Gal, Grégoire, Meyer, Guy, Gourdier, Anne-Laurence, Furber, Alain, Revel, Marie-Pierre, Howarth, Nigel, Davido, Alain, Bounameaux, Henri·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single-detector-row computed tomography (CT) has a low sensitivity for pulmonary embolism and must be combined with venous-compression ultrasonography of the lower limbs. We evaluated whether the use of D-dimer measurement and multidetector-row CT, without lower-limb ultrasonography, might safely rule out pulmonary embolism. METHODS: We included 756 consecutive patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism from the emergency departments of three teaching hospitals and managed their cases according to a standardized sequential diagnostic strategy. All patients were followed for three months. RESULTS: Pulmonary embolism was detected in 194 of the 756 patients (26 percent). Among the 82 patients with a high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism, multidetector-row CT showed pulmonary embolism in 78, and 1 patient had proximal deep venous thrombosis and a CT scan that was negative for pulmonary embolism. Of the 674 patients without a high probability of pulmonary embolism, 232 (34 percent) had a negative D-dimer assay and an uneventful follow-up; CT showed pulmonary embolism in 109 patients. CT and ultrasonography were negative in 318 patients, of whom 3 had a definite thromboembolic event and 2 died of possible pulmonary embolism during follow-up (three-month risk of thromboembolism, 1.7 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.7 to 3.9). Two patients had proximal deep venous thrombosis and a negative CT scan (risk, 0.6 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 2.2). The overall three-month risk of thromboembolism in patients without pulmonary embolism would have been 1.5 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 3.0) if the D-dimer assay and multidetector-row CT had been the only tests used to rule out pulmonary embolism and ultrasonography had not been performed. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate the potential clinical use of a diagnostic strategy for ruling out pulmonary embolism on the basis of D-dimer testing and multidetector-row CT without lower-limb ultrasonography. A larger outcome study is needed before this approach can be adopted.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa042905

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 642

Metadata

Authors
Perrier, A., Roy, P.-M., Sanchez, O., Le Gal, G., Meyer, G., Gourdier, A.-L., Furber, A., Revel, M.-P., Howarth, N., Davido, A., & Bounameaux, H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-04-28
Volume
352
Issue
17
Pages
1760-1768
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1966605730
Cited by
642
References
0
FWCI
49.40
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: Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa042905
The paper
Perrier, A., Roy, P.-M., Sanchez, O., Le Gal, G., Meyer, G., Gourdier, A.-L., Furber, A., Revel, M.-P., Howarth, N., Davido, A., & Bounameaux, H. (2005). Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa042905

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.