The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Further validation and simplification of the Wells clinical decision rule in pulmonary embolism
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The Wells rule is a widely applied clinical decision rule in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).The objective of this study was to replicate, validate and possibly simplify this rule. We used data collected in 3,306 consecutive patients with clinically suspected PE to recalculate the odds ratios for the variables in the rule, to calculate the proportion of patients with PE in the probability categories, the area under the ROC curve and the incidence of venous thromboembolism during follow-up. We compared these measures with those for a modified and a simplified version of the decision rule. In the replication, the odds ratios in the logistic regression model were found to be lower for each of the seven individual variables (p=0.02) but the proportion of patients with PE in the probability categories in our study group were comparable to those in the original derivation and validation groups. The area under the ROC of the original, modified and simplified decision rule was similar: 0.74 (p=0.99; p=0.07).The venous thromboembolism incidence at three months in the group of patients with a Wells score ≤ 4 and a normal D-dimer was 0.5%, versus 0.3% with a modified rule and 0.5% with a simplified rule. The proportion of patients safely excluded for PE was 32%, versus 31% and 30%, respectively. This study further validates the diagnostic utility of theWells rule and indicates that the scoring system can be simplified to one point for each variable.
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
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
2014 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
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. (2019) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/13993003.01647-2019 · Cited by 1,619
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
Raja, A. S., Greenberg, J. O., Qaseem, A., Denberg, T. D., Fitterman, N., Schuur, J. D., & for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians* (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-1772 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Sohne, M., Kruip, M. J. H. A., Tick, L. W., Gerdes, V. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Wells, P. S., Buller, H. R., Gibson, N. S., & the Christopher study investigators
- Venue
- Thrombosis and Haemostasis
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 229-234
- ISSN
- 0340-6245 (ISSN-L)
- 2567-689X
- OpenAlex
- W2030138838
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.42
- 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: Further validation and simplification of the Wells clinical decision rule in pulmonary embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1160/th07-05-0321
- The paper
- Sohne, M., Kruip, M. J. H. A., Tick, L. W., Gerdes, V. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Wells, P. S., Buller, H. R., Gibson, N. S., & the Christopher study investigators. (2008). Further validation and simplification of the Wells clinical decision rule in pulmonary embolism. Thrombosis and Haemostasis. https://doi.org/10.1160/th07-05-0321
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.