Suman W. Rathbun, MD; Gary E. Raskob, PhD; Thomas L. Whitsett, MD
Grant Support: By a College of Medicine Alumni Research Award (Dr. Rathbun). Dr. Raskob is a Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation Presidential Professor.
Requests for Single Reprints: Suman W. Rathbun, MD, Department of Medicine, WP 3120, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, PO Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190.
Requests To Purchase Bulk Reprints (minimum, 100 copies): the Reprints Coordinator; phone, 215-351-2657; e-mail, email@example.com.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Rathbun: Department of Medicine, WP 3120, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190.
Dr. Raskob: Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190.
Dr. Whitsett: Department of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190.
Rathbun SW, Raskob GE, Whitsett TL. Sensitivity and Specificity of Helical Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:227-232. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-3-200002010-00009
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(3):227-232.
To determine the sensitivity and specificity of helical computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and to determine the safety of withholding anticoagulant therapy in patients who have clinically suspected pulmonary embolism and negative results on helical CT.
The MEDLINE database was searched for all reports published from 1986 to October 1999 that evaluated the use of helical CT for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Bibliographies of the retrieved articles were cross-checked to identify additional studies.
All prospective English-language studies were selected. Retrospective studies, review articles, and case reports were excluded, and 5 of the 20 identified articles were excluded. The scientific validity of the remaining 15 articles was assessed.
Two of the authors used a priori, predefined criteria to independently assess each study. A third author resolved disagreements by adjudication. The predefined criteria were inclusion of a consecutive series of all patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, inclusion of patients with and those without pulmonary embolism, a broad spectrum of patient characteristics, performance of helical CT and pulmonary angiography (or an appropriate reference test) in all patients, and independent interpretation of the CT scan and pulmonary angiogram (or reference test). Specific data on sensitivity and specificity and the associated 95% CIs were recorded when available.
No study met all of the predefined criteria for adequately evaluating sensitivity and specificity. The reported sensitivity of helical CT ranged from 53% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 81% to 100%. In no prospective study was anticoagulant therapy withheld without further testing for venous thromboembolism in consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. One prospective study reported the outcome of selected patients with negative results on helical CT who did not receive anticoagulant therapy.
Use of helical CT in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism has not been adequately evaluated. The safety of withholding anticoagulant treatment in patients with negative results on helical CT is uncertain. Definitive large, prospective studies should be done to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and safety of helical CT for diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism.
Learn more about subscription options.
Register Now for a free account.
Emergency Medicine, Pulmonary/Critical Care, Venous Thromboembolism, Pulmonary Embolism, Prevention/Screening.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2016 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only