Abstract
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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 63-73 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Annals of Family Medicine |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 2007 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Computed tomography scanners
- D-dimer
- Deep venous thrombosis/diagnosis
- Forecasting
- Practice guidelines
- Prediction rules
- Pulmonary embolism/diagnosis
- Ultrasonography
- Venous thromboembolism/diagnosis review, systematic
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Family Practice
Cite this
Review of the evidence on diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. / Segal, Jodi; Eng, John; Tamariz, Leonardo J.; Bass, Eric B.
In: Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 63-73.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Review of the evidence on diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism
AU - Segal, Jodi
AU - Eng, John
AU - Tamariz, Leonardo J.
AU - Bass, Eric B
PY - 2007/1
Y1 - 2007/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Computed tomography scanners
KW - D-dimer
KW - Deep venous thrombosis/diagnosis
KW - Forecasting
KW - Practice guidelines
KW - Prediction rules
KW - Pulmonary embolism/diagnosis
KW - Ultrasonography
KW - Venous thromboembolism/diagnosis review, systematic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846674197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846674197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1370/afm.648
DO - 10.1370/afm.648
M3 - Article
C2 - 17261866
AN - SCOPUS:33846674197
VL - 5
SP - 63
EP - 73
JO - Annals of Family Medicine
JF - Annals of Family Medicine
SN - 1544-1709
IS - 1
ER -