Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

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

Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism

Open access
Roy, Pierre-Marie, Colombet, Isabelle, Durieux, Pierre, Chatellier, Gilles, Sors, Hervé, Meyer, Guy·2005·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the likelihood ratios of diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism and to determine their clinical application according to pretest probability. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Pascal Biomed and manual search for articles published from January 1990 to September 2003. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that evaluated diagnostic tests for confirmation or exclusion of pulmonary embolism. DATA EXTRACTED: Positive likelihood ratios for strategies that confirmed a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and negative likelihood ratios for diagnostic strategies that excluded a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. DATA SYNTHESIS: 48 of 1012 articles were included. Positive likelihood ratios for diagnostic tests were: high probability ventilation perfusion lung scan 18.3 (95% confidence interval 10.3 to 32.5), spiral computed tomography 24.1 (12.4 to 46.7), and ultrasonography of leg veins 16.2 (5.6 to 46.7). In patients with a moderate or high pretest probability, these findings are associated with a greater than 85% post-test probability of pulmonary embolism. Negative likelihood ratios were: normal or near normal appearance on lung scan 0.05 (0.03 to 0.10), a negative result on spiral computed tomography along with a negative result on ultrasonography 0.04 (0.03 to 0.06), and a d-dimer concentration < 500 mug/l measured by quantitative enzyme linked immunosorbent assay 0.08 (0.04 to 0.18). In patients with a low or moderate pretest probability, these findings were associated with a post-test probability of pulmonary embolism below 5%. Spiral computed tomography alone, a low probability ventilation perfusion lung scan, magnetic resonance angiography, a quantitative latex d-dimer test, and haemagglutination d-dimers had higher negative likelihood ratios and can therefore only exclude pulmonary embolism in patients with a low pretest probability. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of tests for suspected pulmonary embolism varies greatly, but it is possible to estimate the range of pretest probabilities over which each test or strategy can confirm or rule out pulmonary embolism.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.331.7511.259

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 278

Metadata

Authors
Roy, P.-M., Colombet, I., Durieux, P., Chatellier, G., Sors, H., & Meyer, G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-07-28
Volume
331
Issue
7511
Pages
259
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2156502842
Cited by
278
References
1
FWCI
3.20
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: Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.331.7511.259
The paper
Roy, P.-M., Colombet, I., Durieux, P., Chatellier, G., Sors, H., & Meyer, G. (2005). Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7511.259

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.