Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accuracy of Clinical Assessment in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism

MINIATI, MASSIMO, PREDILETTO, RENATO, FORMICHI, BRUNO, MARINI, CARLO, Di RICCO, GIORGIO, TONELLI, LUCIA, ALLESCIA, GERMANA, PISTOLESI, MASSIMO·1999·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

To provide clinical diagnostic criteria for pulmonary embolism (PE), we evaluated 750 consecutive patients with suspected PE who were enrolled in the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED). Prior to perfusion lung scanning, patients were examined independently by six pulmonologists according to a standardized diagnostic protocol. Study design required pulmonary angiography in all patients with abnormal scans. Patients are reported as two distinct groups: a first group of 500, whose data were analyzed to derive a clinical diagnostic algorithm for PE, and a second group of 250 in whom the diagnostic algorithm was validated. PE was diagnosed by angiography in 202 (40%) of the 500 patients in the first group. A diagnostic algorithm was developed that includes the identification of three symptoms (sudden onset dyspnea, chest pain, and fainting) and their association with one or more of the following abnormalities: electrocardiographic signs of right ventricular overload, radiographic signs of oligemia, amputation of hilar artery, and pulmonary consolidations compatible with infarction. The above three symptoms (singly or in some combination) were associated with at least one of the above electrocardiographic and radiographic abnormalities in 164 (81%) of 202 patients with confirmed PE and in only 22 (7%) of 298 patients without PE. The rate of correct clinical classification was 88% (440/500). In the validation group of 250 patients the prevalence of PE was 42% (104/250). In this group, the sensitivity and specificity of the clinical diagnostic algorithm for PE were 84% (95% CI: 77 to 91%) and 95% (95% CI: 91 to 99%), respectively. The rate of correct clinical classification was 90% (225/250). Combining clinical estimates of PE, derived from the diagnostic algorithm, with independent interpretation of perfusion lung scans helps restrict the need for angiography to a minority of patients with suspected PE.

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 · 10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9806130

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 365

Metadata

Authors
MINIATI, M., PREDILETTO, R., FORMICHI, B., MARINI, C., Di RICCO, G., TONELLI, L., ALLESCIA, G., & PISTOLESI, M.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
1999-03-01
Volume
159
Issue
3
Pages
864-871
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2163455851
Cited by
365
References
7
FWCI
10.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Accuracy of Clinical Assessment in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9806130
The paper
MINIATI, M., PREDILETTO, R., FORMICHI, B., MARINI, C., Di RICCO, G., TONELLI, L., ALLESCIA, G., & PISTOLESI, M. (1999). Accuracy of Clinical Assessment in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9806130

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.