Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=26349907
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 259.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26349907
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 BMJ
2015 ; 351
(ä): h4438
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Diagnostic prediction models for suspected pulmonary embolism: systematic review
and independent external validation in primary care
#MMPMID26349907
Hendriksen JM
; Geersing GJ
; Lucassen WA
; Erkens PM
; Stoffers HE
; van Weert HC
; Büller HR
; Hoes AW
; Moons KG
BMJ
2015[Sep]; 351
(ä): h4438
PMID26349907
show ga
OBJECTIVE: To validate all diagnostic prediction models for ruling out pulmonary
embolism that are easily applicable in primary care. DESIGN: Systematic review
followed by independent external validation study to assess transportability of
retrieved models to primary care medicine. SETTING: 300 general practices in the
Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient dataset of 598 patients with
suspected acute pulmonary embolism in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Discriminative ability of all models retrieved by systematic literature search,
assessed by calculation and comparison of C statistics. After stratification into
groups with high and low probability of pulmonary embolism according to
pre-specified model cut-offs combined with qualitative D-dimer test, sensitivity,
specificity, efficiency (overall proportion of patients with low probability of
pulmonary embolism), and failure rate (proportion of pulmonary embolism cases in
group of patients with low probability) were calculated for all models. RESULTS:
Ten published prediction models for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were
found. Five of these models could be validated in the primary care dataset: the
original Wells, modified Wells, simplified Wells, revised Geneva, and simplified
revised Geneva models. Discriminative ability was comparable for all models
(range of C statistic 0.75-0.80). Sensitivity ranged from 88% (simplified revised
Geneva) to 96% (simplified Wells) and specificity from 48% (revised Geneva) to
53% (simplified revised Geneva). Efficiency of all models was between 43% and
48%. Differences were observed between failure rates, especially between the
simplified Wells and the simplified revised Geneva models (failure rates 1.2%
(95% confidence interval 0.2% to 3.3%) and 3.1% (1.4% to 5.9%), respectively;
absolute difference -1.98% (-3.33% to -0.74%)). Irrespective of the diagnostic
prediction model used, three patients were incorrectly classified as having low
probability of pulmonary embolism; pulmonary embolism was diagnosed only after
referral to secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: Five diagnostic pulmonary embolism
prediction models that are easily applicable in primary care were validated in
this setting. Whereas efficiency was comparable for all rules, the Wells rules
gave the best performance in terms of lower failure rates.