0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Reviews |

Sensitivity and Specificity of Helical Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review

Suman W. Rathbun, MD; Gary E. Raskob, PhD; and Thomas L. Whitsett, MD
[+] Article and Author Information

From University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


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, reprints@mail.acponline.org.

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.


Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(3):227-232. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-3-200002010-00009
Text Size: A A A

Purpose: 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.

Data Sources: 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.

Study Selection: 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.

Data Extraction: 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.

Data Synthesis: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Figures

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)