The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians
Abstract
DESCRIPTION: Pulmonary embolism (PE) can be a severe disease and is difficult to diagnose, given its nonspecific signs and symptoms. Because of this, testing patients with suspected acute PE has increased dramatically. However, the overuse of some tests, particularly computed tomography (CT) and plasma d-dimer measurement, may not improve care while potentially leading to patient harm and unnecessary expense. METHODS: The literature search encompassed studies indexed by MEDLINE (1966-2014; English-language only) and included all clinical trials and meta-analyses on diagnostic strategies, decision rules, laboratory tests, and imaging studies for the diagnosis of PE. This document is not based on a formal systematic review, but instead seeks to provide practical advice based on the best available evidence and recent guidelines. The target audience for this paper is all clinicians; the target patient population is all adults, both inpatient and outpatient, suspected of having acute PE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should use validated clinical prediction rules to estimate pretest probability in patients in whom acute PE is being considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should not obtain d-dimer measurements or imaging studies in patients with a low pretest probability of PE and who meet all Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should obtain a high-sensitivity d-dimer measurement as the initial diagnostic test in patients who have an intermediate pretest probability of PE or in patients with low pretest probability of PE who do not meet all Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria. Clinicians should not use imaging studies as the initial test in patients who have a low or intermediate pretest probability of PE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should use age-adjusted d-dimer thresholds (age × 10 ng/mL rather than a generic 500 ng/mL) in patients older than 50 years to determine whether imaging is warranted. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not obtain any imaging studies in patients with a d-dimer level below the age-adjusted cutoff. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians should obtain imaging with CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with high pretest probability of PE. Clinicians should reserve ventilation-perfusion scans for patients who have a contraindication to CTPA or if CTPA is not available. Clinicians should not obtain a d-dimer measurement in patients with a high pretest probability of 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.
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
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
Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty
Jena, A. B., Seabury, S., Lakdawalla, D., & Chandra, A. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1012370 · Cited by 1,180 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, even when physicians are aware of the low likelihood of PE, the fear of litigation from missing a potentially fatal diagnosis may lead them to order imaging tests anyway (59, 60).”
Background
Cited by
Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with d -Dimer Adjusted to Clinical Probability
Kearon, C., de Wit, K., Parpia, S., Schulman, S., Afilalo, M., Hirsch, A., Spencer, F. A., Sharma, S., D’Aragon, F., Deshaies, J.-F., et al. (2019) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1909159 · Cited by 349
Johnson, E. D., Schell, J. C., & Rodgers, G. M. (2019) · American Journal of Hematology · doi:10.1002/ajh.25482 · Cited by 303
Salwei, M. E., & Carayon, P. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434221097357 · Cited by 112
Metadata
- Authors
- 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*
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2015-11-03
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 701-711
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2105539471
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.29
- 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: Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m14-1772
- The paper
- 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). Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-1772
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.