PURPOSE: This review summarizes the evidence regarding the efficacy of techniques for diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism. METHODS: We searched for studies using MEDLINE, MICROMEDEX, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through June 2006. We reviewed randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews of trials, and observational studies if no trials were available. Paired reviewers assessed the quality of each included article and abstracted the data into summary tables. Heterogeneity in study designs precluded mathematical combination of the results of the primary literature. RESULTS: Our review found 22 relevant systematic reviews and 36 primary studies. The evidence strongly supports the use of clinical prediction rules, particularly the Wells model, for establishing the pretest probability of DVT or pulmonary embolism in a patient before ordering more definitive testing. Fifteen studies support that when a D-dimer assay is negative and a clinical prediction rule suggests a low probability of DVT or pulmonary embolism, the negative predictive value is high enough to justify foregoing imaging studies in many patients. The evidence in 5 systematic reviews regarding the use of D-dimer, in isolation, is strong and demonstrates sensitivities of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and quantitative rapid ELISA, pooled across studies, of approximately 95%. Eight systematic reviews found that the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for diagnosis of DVT vary by vein; ultrasonography performs best for diagnosis of symptomatic, proximal vein thrombosis, with pooled sensitivities of 89% to 96%. The sensitivity of single-detector helical computed tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism varied widely across studies and was below 90% in 4 of 9 studies; more studies are needed to determine the sensitivity of multidetector scanners. CONCLUSIONS: While the strength of the evidence varies across questions, it is generally strong.
PURPOSE: This review summarizes the evidence regarding the efficacy of techniques for diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism. METHODS: We searched for studies using MEDLINE, MICROMEDEX, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through June 2006. We reviewed randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews of trials, and observational studies if no trials were available. Paired reviewers assessed the quality of each included article and abstracted the data into summary tables. Heterogeneity in study designs precluded mathematical combination of the results of the primary literature. RESULTS: Our review found 22 relevant systematic reviews and 36 primary studies. The evidence strongly supports the use of clinical prediction rules, particularly the Wells model, for establishing the pretest probability of DVT or pulmonary embolism in a patient before ordering more definitive testing. Fifteen studies support that when a D-dimer assay is negative and a clinical prediction rule suggests a low probability of DVT or pulmonary embolism, the negative predictive value is high enough to justify foregoing imaging studies in many patients. The evidence in 5 systematic reviews regarding the use of D-dimer, in isolation, is strong and demonstrates sensitivities of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and quantitative rapid ELISA, pooled across studies, of approximately 95%. Eight systematic reviews found that the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for diagnosis of DVT vary by vein; ultrasonography performs best for diagnosis of symptomatic, proximal vein thrombosis, with pooled sensitivities of 89% to 96%. The sensitivity of single-detector helical computed tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism varied widely across studies and was below 90% in 4 of 9 studies; more studies are needed to determine the sensitivity of multidetector scanners. CONCLUSIONS: While the strength of the evidence varies across questions, it is generally strong.
Authors: P S Wells; J Hirsh; D R Anderson; A W Lensing; G Foster; C Kearon; J Weitz; R D'Ovidio; A Cogo; P Prandoni Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-05-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A G Blum; F Delfau; B Grignon; D Beurrier; F Chabot; M Claudon; N Danchin; D Regent Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1994-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: M Remy-Jardin; J Remy; F Deschildre; D Artaud; J P Beregi; C Hossein-Foucher; X Marchandise; A Duhamel Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R A Kraaijenhagen; A W Lensing; J G Lijmer; P Prandoni; M H Prins; J S Ginsberg; H R Buller Journal: Curr Opin Pulm Med Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 3.155
Authors: P S Wells; D R Anderson; J Bormanis; F Guy; M Mitchell; L Gray; C Clement; K S Robinson; B Lewandowski Journal: Lancet Date: 1997 Dec 20-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: L R Goodman; J J Curtin; M W Mewissen; W D Foley; R J Lipchik; M R Crain; K B Sagar; B D Collier Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Vincenza Snow; Patricia Barry; E Rodney Hornbake; Jonathan E Rodnick; Timothy Tobolic; Belinda Ireland; Jodi Segal; Eric Bass; Kevin B Weiss; Lee Green; Douglas K Owens Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Andreas Dunzinger; Franz Hafner; Gottfried Schaffler; Jutta-Claudia Piswanger-Soelkner; Marianne Brodmann; Rainer W Lipp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 9.236