Skip to main content
Article
Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism
Blood Advances
  • Parth Patel, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Payal Patel, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Meha Bhatt, McMaster University
  • Cody Braun, Loyola University Medical Center
  • Housne Begum, McMaster University
  • Wojtek Wiercioch, McMaster University
  • Jamie Varghese, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • David Wooldridge, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Hani Alturkmani, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Merrill Thomas, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Mariam Baig, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Waled Bahaj, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Rasha Khatib, Advocate Aurora Health
  • Rohan Kehar, The University of Western Ontario
  • Rakesh Ponnapureddy, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Anchal Sethi, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Ahmad Mustafa, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • Wendy Lim, McMaster University
  • Grégoire Le Gal, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • Shannon M. Bates, McMaster University
  • Linda B. Haramati, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University
  • Jeffrey Kline, Indiana University School of Medicine
  • Eddy Lang, Cumming School of Medicine
  • Marc Righini, Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève
  • Mohamad A. Kalot, University of Kansas Medical Center
  • Nedaa M. Husainat, University of Kansas Medical Center
  • Yazan Nayif Al Jabiri, Specialty Hospital, Amman
  • Holger J. Schünemann, McMaster University
  • Reem A. Mustafa, McMaster University
Affiliations

Advocate Research Institute

Publication Date
9-22-2020
Abstract

© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common, potentially life-threatening yet treatable condition. Prompt diagnosis and expeditious therapeutic intervention is of paramount importance for optimal patient management. Our objective was to systematically review the accuracy of D-dimer assay, compression ultrasonography (CUS), computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), and ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning for the diagnosis of suspected first and recurrent PE. We searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. 2 investigators screened and abstracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 61 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-0.98) and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.36-0.46) respectively, whereas CTPA sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively, and CUS sensitivity and specificity were 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31-0.66) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), respectively. Three variations of pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity of V/Q scan were carried out, based on interpretation of test results. D-dimer had the highest sensitivity when compared with imaging. CTPA and V/Q scans (high probability scan as a positive and low/non-diagnostic/normal scan as negative) both had the highest specificity. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42018084669.

Document Type
Article
PubMed ID
32915980
Citation Information

Patel P, Patel P, Bhatt M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. Blood Adv. 2020;4(18):4296-4311. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001052