Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:24:24.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are all pulmonary embolism clinical decision rules equal?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Patrick T. Fok  and
Robert Primavesi
Patrick T. Fok*
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency Training Program, McGill University, Montreal, QC
Robert Primavesi
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC
*
Emergency Medicine Residency Training Program, Room A4.62, Royal Victoria Hospital, 687 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC H3A 1A1; patrick.fok@mail.mcgill.ca.

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

clinical decision ruleD-dimerpulmonary embolismrevised Geneva scoresimplified revised Geneva scoresimplified Wells ruleWells rule
Type
Knowledge to Practice • Des connaissances à la pratique
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 15 , Issue 5 , September 2013 , pp. 300 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2013

References

REFERENCES

1.Wells, PS, Anderson, DR, Rodger, M, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the model’s utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000;83:416–20.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Le Gal, G, Righini, M, Roy, PM, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:165–71.Google Scholar
3.Klok, FA, Mos, IC, Nijkeuter, M, et al. Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:2131–6, doi:10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131.Google Scholar
4.Douma, RA, Gibson, NS, Gerdes, VE, et al. Validity and clinical utility of the simplified Wells rule for assessing clinical probability for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 2009;101:197–200.Google Scholar
5.Klok, FA, Kruisman, E, Spaan, J, et al. Comparison of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6:40–4, doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02820.x.Google Scholar
6.Calisir, C, Yavas, US, Ozkan, IR, et al. Performance of the Wells and revised Geneva scores for predicting pulmonary embolism. Eur J Emerg Med 2009;16:49–52, doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328304ae6d.Google Scholar
7.Wong, DD, Ramaseshan, G, Mendelson, RM. Comparison of the Wells and revised Geneva scores for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: an Australian experience. Intern Med J 2011;41:258–63, doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02204.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Pasha, SM, Klok, FA, Snoep, JD, et al. Safety of excluding acute pulmonary embolism based on an unlikely clinical probability by the Wells rule and normal D-dimer concentration: a metaanalysis. Thromb Res 2010;125:e123-7, doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2009.11.009.Google Scholar