0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Simplification of the Revised Geneva Score for Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism FREE

Frederikus A. Klok, MD; Inge C. M. Mos, MD; Mathilde Nijkeuter, MD, PhD; Marc Righini, MD, PhD; Arnaud Perrier, MD, PhD; Grégoire Le Gal, MD, PhD; Menno V. Huisman, MD, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Section of Vascular Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine–Endocrinology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands (Drs Klok, Mos, Nijkeuter, and Huisman); Divisions of Angiology and Haemostasis (Dr Righini) and General Internal Medicine (Dr Perrier), Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; and Division of Internal Medicine and Pulmonology, Hopital de la Cavale Blanche and Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France (Dr Le Gal).


Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2131-2136. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  The revised Geneva score is a fully standardized clinical decision rule (CDR) in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The variables of the decision rule have different weights, which could lead to miscalculations in an acute setting. We have validated a simplified version of the revised Geneva score.

Methods  Data from 1049 patients from 2 large prospective diagnostic trials that included patients with suspected PE were used and combined to validate the simplified revised Geneva score. We constructed the simplified CDR by attributing 1 point to each item of the original CDR and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 2 versions by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We also assessed the clinical utility of the simplified CDR by evaluating the safety of ruling out PE on the basis of the combination of either a low-intermediate clinical probability (using a 3-level scheme) or a “PE unlikely” assessment (using a dichotomized rule) with a normal result on a highly sensitive D-dimer test.

Results  The complete study population had an overall prevalence of venous thromboembolism of 23%. The diagnostic accuracy between the 2 CDRs did not differ (area under the curve for the revised Geneva score was 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.78] vs 0.74 [0.70-0.77] for the simplified revised Geneva score). During 3 months of follow-up, no patient with a combination of either a low (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0%-1.7%) or intermediate (0%; 0.0%-2.8%) clinical probability, or a “PE unlikely” assessment (0%; 0.0%-1.2%) with the simplified score and a normal result of a D-dimer test was diagnosed as having venous thromboembolism.

Conclusion  This study suggests that simplification of the revised Geneva score does not lead to a decrease in diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility, which should be confirmed in a prospective study.

Figures in this Article

A clinical decision rule (CDR) can be defined as an instrument containing variables obtained from history, physical examination, and simple diagnostic tests quantifying the likelihood of a diagnosis, prognosis, or likely response to treatment in an individual patient.1 Pulmonary embolism (PE) is clinically suspected in many patients who report respiratory or chest distress because of the nonspecific nature of the presenting signs and symptoms. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PE in this population is relatively low. Several CDRs have been developed to assist the clinician in diagnostic decision making.2 Correct implementation of CDRs in diagnostic strategies has been proven to decrease the need for expensive, time-consuming, and invasive diagnostic imaging procedures. Moreover, the venous thromboembolism failure rate is acceptably low in patients in whom PE is ruled out by various diagnostic criteria including a CDR and when anticoagulant treatment is withheld.35

Although 2 CDRs for the pretest probability of PE have been extensively validated, ie, the Wells rule and the Geneva score,6,7 both have practical limitations.710 A fully standardized rule exclusively based on objective clinical items, the revised Geneva score, has been developed and validated recently.9,10 The revised Geneva score is independent of physicians' implicit judgment, which makes this CDR objective and easily reproducible.10 The score consists of 8 different variables with different individual weights (Table 1), which might lead to miscalculations in acute patient care. Also, a more complicated score may be less likely to be used by clinicians or remembered correctly.11 Therefore, we evaluated whether a simplified version of the revised Geneva score in which each variable would be attributed 1 point (Table 1) would retain its diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness. To test this hypothesis, we retrospectively compared the performance of the original and the simplified revised Geneva scores in 2 large patient cohorts.3,4

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Scoring of the 8 Variables in the Original and Simplified Revised Geneva Score
PATIENTS

Data from 2 large prospective diagnostic trials that included patients with suspected PE were used and combined for the validation of the simplified revised Geneva score.3,4

In the first trial (study A), consecutive patients with suspected PE admitted to the emergency department of 3 teaching hospitals (Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; Angers University Hospital, Angers, France; and Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Paris, France) between August 1, 2002, and November 30, 2003, were eligible for inclusion.3 The Geneva score was assessed in all patients before diagnostic testing.7 In patients with either a low or intermediate probability, plasma D-dimer levels (VIDAS D-Dimer Exclusion Test; bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) were measured. Pulmonary embolism was ruled out in patients with a level below the cutoff value of 500 ng/mL (to convert to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 5.476 × 10−3). Patients with a D-dimer level greater than 500 ng/mL as well as patients with high clinical probability underwent proximal venous-compression ultrasonography of the lower limbs and multidetector-row computed tomography (CT). Patients with CT findings indicating PE or patients with respiratory distress in combination with ultrasonography that showed deep venous thrombosis received anticoagulant treatment, whereas such therapy was withheld in patients in whom both test results were normal.

In the second study (study B), the clinical effectiveness of a simplified algorithm using the dichotomized Wells rule (Table 2),4,6 D-dimer testing, and CT in patients with suspected PE was evaluated.4 Only patients from the Leiden Medical University Hospital who participated in that study were included in the present analysis. Pulmonary embolism was considered to be excluded if the diagnosis of PE was unlikely (Wells score ≤4) in combination with a normal quantitative D-dimer test result. When the Wells score was 4 or less in combination with an increased D-dimer value (>500 ng/mL) or when the diagnosis of PE was likely (Wells score >4), the diagnosis of PE was established by CT. Patients in both studies were followed up for 3 months. Patients with confirmed venous thromboembolism were brought back for reexamination. All other patients were instructed to report any new signs of venous thromboembolism to their general practitioner or to the emergency department of the participating hospitals. At the end of the 3-month follow-up period, all patients were interviewed by telephone and were asked to disclose all health-related events since their hospital discharge. The family physician was contacted whenever a possible event was disclosed by the interim history, and charts were reviewed if a patient was readmitted to the hospital for any cause or died during the follow-up period. Recurrent venous thromboembolism was diagnosed according to standard criteria.3,4 Both studies were approved by the ethics committees of all participating hospitals, and all patients provided written informed consent before they were enrolled.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Scoring of the 7 Variables of the Wells Rule

In study A, D-dimer testing was part of the diagnostic workup of all patients with either a low or intermediate probability according to the Geneva score.7 In study B, D-dimer tests were performed only in patients with a Wells score of 4 or less. This resulted in missing D-dimer data for 69 patients in the low- and intermediate-probability group and for 29 patients in the unlikely clinical probability group as assessed by the simplified revised Geneva score.

ASSESSMENT OF THE REVISED GENEVA SCORE

In study A,3 the data collection form was identical to that used in the derivation study of the revised Geneva score, allowing retrospective calculation of the simplified revised Geneva score for each patient. In study B,4 the Wells rule was used for assessing clinical probability. The revised Geneva score comprises 4 variables not included in the Wells rule: age, unilateral lower-limb pain, heart rate, and signs of deep venous thrombosis (pain on lower-limb deep venous palpation and unilateral edema).The 4 variables absent from the original database were extracted from the medical charts in a prespecified standard way by 2 independent observers after blinding of the diagnosis (PE or no PE) by a third person not involved in the data extraction. Lower-limb pain and signs of deep venous thrombosis were routinely recorded in patient charts in the setting of a clinically suspected PE. Therefore, there were no missing data.

In the simplified revised Geneva score, all variables were given 1 point if present (Table 1). Because of the weight of heart rate in the original score, we attributed 1 point to a heart rate between 75 and 94 beats/min and an additional point for a heart rate of 95 beats/min or more.

DATA ANALYSIS

Patient characteristics and outcomes of both studies were combined in a single database. Optimal cutoff points for the simplified Geneva score were determined by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. To account for the existence of both 3-level (low, intermediate, or high clinical probability) and 2-level (PE unlikely or likely) schemes in clinical practice, we set cutoff points for both schemes. Accuracy of the simplified revised Geneva score and the revised Geneva score was compared by means of the area under the curve (AUC) in ROC analyses of the continuous score and of the 3-level classification scheme. Comparing the AUC for the continuous scores was designed to compare the original and simplified rule more precisely, using all possible point scores. However, the continuous score is not meant for clinical use. We studied the clinical course of patients with a normal D-dimer result in different clinical probability categories using the simplified revised Geneva score. Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS software (SPSS for Windows 14.0.2; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois). P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Study A included 756 outpatients. They had a mean (SD) age of 60 (19) years, and 454 were female (60.1%). The overall prevalence of PE in this cohort was 25.6% (194 patients). However, owing to missing values mainly for heart rate, the revised Geneva score could not be computed in 7 patients, leaving 749 for the present analysis, including 192 patients with PE (25.6%). Three hundred patients in study B with suspected PE were included in the present study. These patients were 47 (16) years old at time of diagnosis, 181 were female (60.3%), and 289 were outpatients (96.3%). The overall prevalence of PE in this cohort was 16.3% (49 patients). Taken as a whole, the complete study population consisted of 1049 patients with an overall prevalence of venous thromboembolism of 23.0% (241 patients).

In selecting the optimal cutoffs for the 3-level scheme, a low clinical probability was defined as a score of 0 or 1 point, an intermediate probability as 2 to 4 points, and a high probability as 5 points or more (Figure 1 and Figure 2). With the use of these cutoff points, 378 patients (36.0%) were assigned to the low clinical probability category (prevalence of PE, 7.7% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.2%-10.8%]), 629 patients (60.0%) to the intermediate clinical probability category (prevalence of PE, 29.4% [265.9-33.1%]), and 42 patients (4.0%) to the high clinical probability category (prevalence of PE, 64.3% [48.0%-78.5%]). The optimal cutoff for the 2-level scheme was 3 points, patients with a score of 0 to 2 being categorized as unlikely to have PE and those with a score of 3 or more as likely to have PE (Figure 1); 681 patients (64.9%) were designated unlikely to have PE (prevalence of PE, 12.9% [10.5%-15.7%]) and 368 patients (35.1%) were designated likely to have PE (prevalence of PE, 41.6% [36.5%-46.8%]). Flowcharts for both dichotomized and trichotomized rules are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Score application in the study population, percentage with pulmonary embolism (PE), and proportions of the population in the 3-level and 2-level clinical probability categories.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Receiver operating characteristic curves. A, Continuous revised Geneva score (RGS) and simplified RGS. B, Three-level categorized RGS and simplified RGS.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Flowchart of patients showing outcomes by 3-level simplified revised Geneva score. *One patient was lost to follow-up and 3 patients were treated with anticoagulant therapy for reasons other than pulmonary embolism (PE). †One patient was lost to follow-up and 7 patients were treated with anticoagulant therapy for reasons other than PE. CI indicates confidence interval.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Flowchart of patients showing outcomes with dichotomous use of the simplified revised Geneva score. *Two patients were lost to follow-up and 10 patients were treated with anticoagulant therapy for reasons other than pulmonary embolism (PE). CI indicates confidence interval.

Graphic Jump Location

We compared the AUC for the revised Geneva score and simplified revised Geneva score (Figure 2). The AUC of the continuous score was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.78) for the revised Geneva rule and 0.74 (0.70-0.77) for the simplified revised Geneva rule. The AUC of the 3-level classification scheme was 0.70 (0.66-0.74) for the revised Geneva score and 0.68 (0.64-0.72) for the simplified revised Geneva score.

Finally, we studied the clinical utility of the simplified revised Geneva score. Of all patients in the combined patient population with a normal result of the D-dimer test, in whom PE was excluded (n = 361), 2 patients were lost during follow-up and an additional 10 received anticoagulant therapy for reasons other than PE. These patients were excluded from the analysis. During 3 months of follow-up, no patient with a low (0 of 219 [0%; 95% CI, 0.0%-1.7%]) or intermediate (0 of 130 [0%; 0.0%-2.8%]) clinical probability score by the simplified revised Geneva score and a normal D-dimer result at inclusion was subsequently diagnosed as having venous thromboembolism (Figure 3). When the 2-level rule was used, no patient with an unlikely clinical probability (0 of 318 [0%; 0.0%-1.2%]) was subsequently diagnosed as having venous thromboembolism after the 3-month follow-up period (Figure 4).

This study shows that it is possible to simplify the revised Geneva score without decreasing the diagnostic accuracy of the rule. The distribution of the patient proportions by the simplified revised Geneva score in both trichotomized and dichotomized categories and the prevalence of PE in these categories were comparable to those of the original revised Geneva score9 as well as to 3 other validated CDRs: the Wells rule,4,6 the Geneva score,7 and the rule by Kline et al.12 The simplified revised Geneva score is clinically useful and might safely rule out PE when combined with a normal D-dimer result using a highly sensitive assay. Indeed, in this cohort, the venous thromboembolism failure rates were extremely low in patients with normal D-dimer results and a low-intermediate clinical probability (3-level scheme) or a “PE unlikely” assessment (2-level score). The simplified score would likely be easier to compute and may reduce computational errors in clinical practice in busy environments with a heavy workload.

Several studies have shown D-dimer assays to have a high negative predictive value and to be a sensitive but nonspecific marker of PE.13 However, different sensitivity for several D-dimer assays has been described in the literature.2,1315 Less sensitive tests yield a lower negative predictive value for the same pretest probability of PE. Also, the negative predictive value of a normal D-dimer test result diminishes as disease prevalence rises.16 As a consequence, the proportion of patients with suspected PE in whom D-dimer testing can safely be used to exclude PE depends on both the prevalence of the disease and the sensitivity of the D-dimer assay. This is why we adopted 2 different schemes. Table 3 shows the posttest probability of PE for various combinations of clinical probability categories and D-dimer assays. The upper limit of the 95% CI of the 3-month thromboembolic rate after negative pulmonary angiography is 2.7%.17 Using this 3% as the upper posttest probability limit above which it is no longer safe to rule out PE by the combination of clinical probability and a negative D-dimer result, Table 3 shows that, with a 3-level score, a less sensitive D-dimer assay would exclude PE safely only in low-probability patients, whereas the same assay would still be safe in the patients in whom PE was unlikely by using the 2-level score. For this reason, a less sensitive assay would rule out PE in more patients and therefore be more useful in combination with the dichotomized rule because there are more patients categorized as PE unlikely than in the low clinical probability category (Figure 1). Conversely, the 3-level score would be more useful when a highly sensitive assay is used because it would safely rule out PE in both the low and intermediate probability groups, which would regroup a higher number of patients than the PE unlikely category. In the present study, a highly sensitive quantitative D-dimer assay with a reported sensitivity of 95% to 98% was used,2 and the outcome of 3-month follow-up was good in either low- intermediate probability or PE unlikely categories. However, a physician using the simplified revised Geneva score in combination with a D-dimer assay with a lower sensitivity should probably restrict its use to the low clinical probability category of the 3-level score to exclude PE.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Posttest Probability of PE According to Sensitivity of DD and Clinical Probability Category as Assigned by Simplified Revised Geneva Scorea

The AUC of the ROC curve of the simplified score was not lower than that of the original score. Given that the original score assigned very different weights to the individual variables, at least some loss of predictive accuracy would have been expected, and this might therefore seem surprising. Because this is also true for the ROC curve using all the score values and not only 2 cutoff values, this observation is not due to cutoff selection in this particular population.

This study has limitations. We performed a retrospective analysis, which can be subject to various biases. We acknowledge that prospectively studying the clinical utility and outcomes in a new sample would be the best way of testing our hypothesis. Nevertheless, the revised Geneva score could be calculated in more than 99% of patients. Also, the original cohorts prospectively included consecutive patients with minimal loss to follow-up (0.5% in study A and 0.1% in study B). There were some differences in general characteristics between the 2 study populations, ie, mean age and prevalence of PE. However, the prevalence of PE according to the number of points in the simplified revised Geneva score was similar in the 2 groups (data not shown), which actually adds validity to the simplified score. Finally, by study design, D-dimer results were not available for all patients. Data were missing in 9 patients (2.4%) with low clinical probability, in 60 patients (9.5%) with intermediate clinical probability, and in 29 patients (4.3%) designated as PE unlikely.

In summary, our data indicate that simplification of the revised Geneva score does not decrease the score's diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. Prospective outcome studies are needed, however, to confirm our findings.

Correspondence: Frederikus A. Klok, MD, Section of Vascular Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine–Endocrinology, Leiden University Medical Center (Room C4-70), Albinusdreef 2, Postbus 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands (F.A.Klok@LUMC.nl).

Accepted for Publication: April 25, 2008.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Klok, Nijkeuter, Perrier, Le Gal, and Huisman. Acquisition of data: Klok, Righini, and Le Gal. Analysis and interpretation of data: Klok, Mos, Perrier, and Huisman. Drafting of the manuscript: Klok, Mos, Righini, Perrier, and Huisman. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Nijkeuter, Perrier, Le Gal, and Huisman. Statistical analysis: Klok, Nijkeuter, and Le Gal. Obtained funding: Righini. Administrative, technical, and material support: Mos. Study supervision: Perrier and Huisman.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Laupacis  ASekar  NStiell  IG Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277 (6) 488- 494
PubMed Link to Article
Wells  PS Integrated strategies for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost 2007;5 ((suppl 1)) 41- 50
PubMed Link to Article
Perrier  ARoy  PMSanchez  O  et al.  Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005;352 (17) 1760- 1768
PubMed Link to Article
van Belle  ABuller  HRHuisman  MV  et al. Christopher Study Investigators, Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA 2006;295 (2) 172- 179
PubMed Link to Article
Kruip  MJSlob  MJSchijen  JHvan der Heul  CBüller  HR Use of a clinical decision rule in combination with D-dimer concentration in diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective management study. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (14) 1631- 1635
PubMed Link to Article
Wells  PSAnderson  DRRodgers  M  et al.  Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with simpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000;83 (3) 416- 420
PubMed
Wicki  JPerneger  TVJunod  AFBounameaux  HPerrier  A Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward. Arch Intern Med 2001;161 (1) 92- 97
PubMed Link to Article
Chagnon  IBounameaux  HAujesky  D  et al.  Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002;113 (4) 269- 275
PubMed Link to Article
Le Gal  GRighini  MRoy  P-M  et al.  Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006;144 (3) 165- 171
PubMed Link to Article
Klok  FAKruijswijk  ESpaan  J  et al.  Comparison of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6 (1) 40- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Runyon  MSRichman  PBKline  JAPulmonary Embolism Research Consortium Study Group, Emergency medicine practitioner knowledge and use of decision rules for the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: variations by practice setting and training level. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14 (1) 53- 57
PubMed Link to Article
Kline  JANelson  RDJackson  RECourtney  DM Criteria for the safe use of D-dimer testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a multi-center US study. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39 (2) 144- 152
PubMed Link to Article
Kelly  JRudd  ALewis  RRHunt  BJ Plasma D-dimers in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (7) 747- 756
PubMed Link to Article
Gardiner  CPennaneac’h  CWalford  CMachin  SJMackie  IJ An evaluation of rapid D-dimer assays for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis. Br J Haematol 2005;128 (6) 842- 848
PubMed Link to Article
Kovacs  MJMacKinnon  KMAnderson  D  et al.  A comparison of three rapid D-dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Br J Haematol 2001;115 (1) 140- 144
PubMed Link to Article
Di Nisio  MSquizzato  ARutjes  AWBüller  HRZwinderman  AHBossuyt  PM Diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer test for exclusion of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost 2007;5 (2) 296- 304
PubMed Link to Article
van Beek  EJBrouwerst  EMSong  BStein  PDOudkerk  M Clinical validity of a normal pulmonary angiogram in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism—a critical review. Clin Radiol 2001;56 (10) 838- 842
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Score application in the study population, percentage with pulmonary embolism (PE), and proportions of the population in the 3-level and 2-level clinical probability categories.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Receiver operating characteristic curves. A, Continuous revised Geneva score (RGS) and simplified RGS. B, Three-level categorized RGS and simplified RGS.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Flowchart of patients showing outcomes by 3-level simplified revised Geneva score. *One patient was lost to follow-up and 3 patients were treated with anticoagulant therapy for reasons other than pulmonary embolism (PE). †One patient was lost to follow-up and 7 patients were treated with anticoagulant therapy for reasons other than PE. CI indicates confidence interval.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Flowchart of patients showing outcomes with dichotomous use of the simplified revised Geneva score. *Two patients were lost to follow-up and 10 patients were treated with anticoagulant therapy for reasons other than pulmonary embolism (PE). CI indicates confidence interval.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Scoring of the 8 Variables in the Original and Simplified Revised Geneva Score
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Scoring of the 7 Variables of the Wells Rule
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Posttest Probability of PE According to Sensitivity of DD and Clinical Probability Category as Assigned by Simplified Revised Geneva Scorea

References

Laupacis  ASekar  NStiell  IG Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277 (6) 488- 494
PubMed Link to Article
Wells  PS Integrated strategies for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost 2007;5 ((suppl 1)) 41- 50
PubMed Link to Article
Perrier  ARoy  PMSanchez  O  et al.  Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005;352 (17) 1760- 1768
PubMed Link to Article
van Belle  ABuller  HRHuisman  MV  et al. Christopher Study Investigators, Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA 2006;295 (2) 172- 179
PubMed Link to Article
Kruip  MJSlob  MJSchijen  JHvan der Heul  CBüller  HR Use of a clinical decision rule in combination with D-dimer concentration in diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective management study. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (14) 1631- 1635
PubMed Link to Article
Wells  PSAnderson  DRRodgers  M  et al.  Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with simpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000;83 (3) 416- 420
PubMed
Wicki  JPerneger  TVJunod  AFBounameaux  HPerrier  A Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward. Arch Intern Med 2001;161 (1) 92- 97
PubMed Link to Article
Chagnon  IBounameaux  HAujesky  D  et al.  Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002;113 (4) 269- 275
PubMed Link to Article
Le Gal  GRighini  MRoy  P-M  et al.  Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006;144 (3) 165- 171
PubMed Link to Article
Klok  FAKruijswijk  ESpaan  J  et al.  Comparison of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6 (1) 40- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Runyon  MSRichman  PBKline  JAPulmonary Embolism Research Consortium Study Group, Emergency medicine practitioner knowledge and use of decision rules for the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: variations by practice setting and training level. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14 (1) 53- 57
PubMed Link to Article
Kline  JANelson  RDJackson  RECourtney  DM Criteria for the safe use of D-dimer testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a multi-center US study. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39 (2) 144- 152
PubMed Link to Article
Kelly  JRudd  ALewis  RRHunt  BJ Plasma D-dimers in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (7) 747- 756
PubMed Link to Article
Gardiner  CPennaneac’h  CWalford  CMachin  SJMackie  IJ An evaluation of rapid D-dimer assays for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis. Br J Haematol 2005;128 (6) 842- 848
PubMed Link to Article
Kovacs  MJMacKinnon  KMAnderson  D  et al.  A comparison of three rapid D-dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Br J Haematol 2001;115 (1) 140- 144
PubMed Link to Article
Di Nisio  MSquizzato  ARutjes  AWBüller  HRZwinderman  AHBossuyt  PM Diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer test for exclusion of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost 2007;5 (2) 296- 304
PubMed Link to Article
van Beek  EJBrouwerst  EMSong  BStein  PDOudkerk  M Clinical validity of a normal pulmonary angiogram in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism—a critical review. Clin Radiol 2001;56 (10) 838- 842
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 56

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Thromboembolism or Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Table 9.2-3 Refuted Evidence From Observational Studiesa