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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Cites
Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease.
Diamond, G. A., & Forrester, J. S. (1979) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197906143002402 · Cited by 2,664
Cited by
Konstantinides, S. V., Meyer, G., Becattini, C., Bueno, H., Geersing, G.-J., Harjola, V.-P., Huisman, M. V., Humbert, M., Jennings, C. S., Jiménez, D., et al. (2020) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405 · Cited by 4,916
Self-citation2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism
Authors/Task Force Members, Konstantinides, S. V., Torbicki, A., Agnelli, G., Danchin, N., Fitzmaurice, D., Galiè, N., Gibbs, J. S. R., Huisman, M. V., Humbert, M., et al. (2014) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu283 · Cited by 3,128
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.