0
Reviews |

Meta-Analysis: The Value of Clinical Assessment in the Diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis FREE

Steve Goodacre, MB, ChB, FFAEM, MSc, PhD; Alex J. Sutton, BSc, MSc, PhD; and Fiona C. Sampson, BA, MSc
[+] Article and Author Information

From University of Sheffield, Sheffield, and University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Kingdom Department of Health.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Vanja Dukic for her assistance with the meta-regression analysis and Angie Ryan for her help with the literature searches.

Grant Support: The United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment R&D Programme funded this project (reference no. 02/03/01).

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.

Requests for Single Reprints: Steve Goodacre, MB, ChB, FFAEM, MSc, PhD, Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, United Kingdom; e-mail, s.goodacre@sheffield.ac.uk.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Goodacre and Ms. Sampson: Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, United Kingdom.

Dr. Sutton: Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, United Kingdom.


Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(2):129-139. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-143-2-200507190-00012
Text Size: A A A

Background: Clinical assessment of suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) should be based on systematically evaluated evidence.

Purpose: To determine whether clinical findings, risk scores, and physicians' empirical judgments affect the likelihood of detecting DVT on definitive testing.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, ACP Journal Club, and citation lists (1966 to January 2005).

Study Selection: Cohort studies published in English, French, Spanish, or Italian that compared clinical assessment with a reference standard.

Data Extraction: The authors extracted standardized data, including setting, exclusions, population characteristics, reference standard, and results, and assessed quality against validated criteria.

Data Synthesis: The authors combined data by using random-effects meta-analysis and, if appropriate, used meta-regression to identify covariates that predicted diagnostic accuracy. Only malignancy (likelihood ratio [LR], 2.71), previous DVT (LR, 2.25), recent immobilization (LR, 1.98), difference in calf diameter (LR, 1.80), and recent surgery (LR, 1.76) were useful for ruling in DVT, while only absence of calf swelling (LR, 0.67) or difference in calf diameter (LR, 0.57) was useful for ruling out DVT. The Wells clinical score was more valuable than the individual characteristics; it stratified patients into groups with high (LR, 5.2), intermediate, and low (LR, 0.25) probability of DVT. The Wells score seemed able to stratify patients by risk only for proximal DVT, and it performed better in cohorts that were younger or excluded patients with previous thromboembolism.

Limitations: Pooled estimates were subject to substantial heterogeneity. This may limit extrapolation between observers and settings. Only published studies were included, so findings may be subject to publication bias.

Conclusion: Individual clinical features are of limited value in diagnosing DVT. Overall assessment of clinical probability by using the Wells score is more useful.

Editors' Notes
Context

Which clinical findings most affect the probability of deep venous thrombosis (DVT)?

Contribution

This systematic review of 54 cohort studies found that previous DVT and malignant disease modestly increased the probability of DVT (positive likelihood ratios, 2.25 and 2.71), followed by recent immobilization, difference in calf diameter, and recent surgery (positive likelihood ratios, 1.75 to 1.98). Wells scores, based on 9 items, stratified patients' probability of proximal DVT much better than did individual findings, particularly in younger patients and in patients without previous DVT.

Implications

Estimating the probability of DVT is best accomplished by assessing and scoring multiple findings.

–The Editors

Suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is a common cause of emergency hospitalization (1). Many technologies can be used to diagnose DVT, varying from the cheap and simple but inaccurate (d-dimer testing) to the accurate but expensive and technically challenging (venography). Clinical assessment can be used to select patients for an appropriate diagnostic test. This may involve using individual clinical features to estimate the likelihood of DVT or using standardized clinical assessment to derive a pretest probability based on a clinical score. The Wells clinical score is a widely used instrument that categorizes patients into high, intermediate, and low risk for DVT (2).

It is increasingly being recognized that clinical diagnosis should be based on systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence (3). Investigations of the clinical diagnosis of DVT have been published over more than 4 decades (45). We aimed to systematically review the literature to determine whether physicians' empirical judgments, clinical findings, and risk scores affect the likelihood of detecting thrombosis with venography, ultrasonography, or plethysmography in adults with suspected DVT.

We sought to identify all diagnostic cohort studies of patients with suspected DVT that recorded physicians' empirical judgments, clinical findings, or a clinical score and then undertook diagnostic testing for DVT. We searched the following electronic sources (1966 to January 2005): MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, and ACP Journal Club. We scanned the bibliographies of all retrieved articles for potentially relevant articles that were not identified by the original search.

Two reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of all articles identified by the search strategy and independently determined whether the article could potentially be reporting a cohort study that measured the diagnostic performance of physicians' empirical judgments, clinical findings, or a clinical score compared with a reference standard test (venography, ultrasonography, or plethysmography). Full copies of all selected articles were retrieved. The same 2 reviewers then independently reviewed the full articles to determine whether they did meet the criteria outlined earlier. A κ score was calculated for agreement between the 2 reviewers at both stages of the selection process, and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

We specifically excluded the following: studies that measured the risk for developing DVT after recording clinical characteristics rather than measuring the probability that DVT was present at the time of assessment; case-control studies, in which patients were selected on the basis or having or not having DVT; and studies with fewer than 10 patients. We included studies published in English, French, Spanish, or Italian and excluded studies published in other languages. If a study was published as an abstract, we contacted the authors to ask for full details of the data. If we could not extract the necessary data from the published report, we contacted the authors for clarification, provided the study was published in the past 10 years.

We assessed study quality by determining whether the reference standard was applied independently of the findings of the clinical assessment, whether observers blinded to the reference standard result undertook clinical assessment, and whether observers blinded to the results of clinical assessment interpreted the reference standard. Empirical evidence suggests that failure to meet these criteria is associated with overestimation of diagnostic accuracy (6).

We extracted the following data from each article: the setting for recruitment; groups excluded from the study; population characteristics (mean or median age, sex balance); prevalence of DVT (proximal/above knee and distal/below knee); whether clinical data were extracted from clinical notes or collected on a standardized form by the clinician; the person who recorded the clinical data; the reference standard used; the number of true-positive results (proximal and distal DVT), true-negative results, and false-positive and false-negative results (proximal and distal DVT) for each clinical feature; and the number of case-patients with and without DVT for each clinical score (either as reported or calculated from the reported data).

Statistical Analysis

We used a random-effects model, as implemented by MetaDiSc statistical software (7), to estimate pooled likelihood ratios for the presence and absence of each clinical feature (8). A chi-square test for heterogeneity is reported for each clinical feature. Although considerable heterogeneity existed for a proportion of the outcomes, we did not undertake meta-regression of individual clinical features because of the relatively small numbers of studies available for most meta-analyses (9).

Clinical scores are usually reported as the prevalence of DVT in each risk category. This is similar to reporting the predictive values of a diagnostic test and will vary according to the population prevalence of DVT. We therefore analyzed the data by examining how the scores categorized patients with and without DVT. This approach is similar to analyzing and reporting sensitivity and specificity.

Meta-analyses of the Wells score and empirical estimates were necessarily more complex since individuals were categorized into 3 groups (high, intermediate, and low risk for DVT). We carried out ordinal logistic regression, including a random study effect coefficient, using the software WinBUGS (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom) (10) to estimate the probability of being categorized as having high, intermediate, and low risk; we used separate models for persons with any DVT, those with proximal DVT, those with distal DVT, and those without DVT. From this analysis, we could estimate sensitivity and specificity for 2 possible decision thresholds for all cases of DVT: high versus intermediate and low, and high and intermediate versus low. We estimated pooled likelihood ratios for high and low categories using the random-effects model implemented by MetaDiSc statistical software.

We used meta-regression to explore the influence of study-level covariates on diagnostic performance of the Wells score and potentially explain a proportion of the between-study heterogeneity. To do this, we extended the ordinal regression model to fit a fixed-effects summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve through the data and to explore the influence of adding covariates into the model on the shape of the curve (11). Results are reported along with an indication of which covariates were statistically significant at the 5% level. The NLMIXED procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) (12) was used for the analysis. The Appendix further describes the details of this analysis.

Role of the Funding Source

The United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment R&D Programme funded this project (reference no. 02/03/01). The funding source had no role in the design, conduct, and reporting of the study or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

Figure 1 outlines the flow of articles considered for the review. The 51 articles included in the meta-analysis reported data from 54 cohorts: 29 cohorts evaluated individual clinical features, 25 cohorts evaluated the Wells clinical score, 7 cohorts developed or evaluated other scores, and 8 cohorts evaluated physicians' empirical judgments. Appendix Table 1 describes the characteristics of the cohorts. In most studies, the reference standard was applied independently of the results of clinical assessment. The exceptions were studies that augmented an ultrasonography reference standard with further testing based on clinical probability. Reporting of blinding of clinical assessment and the reference standard was generally poor; in most studies, it was unclear whether assessments were blinded or not.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of studies considered for the review.

*κ = 0.85. †κ = 0.86.

Grahic Jump Location

We undertook meta-analyses of 13 different clinical features, 1 clinical score (the Wells score), and 2 approaches to physicians' empirical judgments. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the studies included in each meta-analysis. Studies included in meta-analyses of individual clinical features were more likely to use venography as the reference standard, whereas studies included in the meta-analysis of the Wells score were more likely to use ultrasonography. More studies in the meta-analysis of the Wells score used a reference standard that depended on the results of clinical assessment.

Table Jump PlaceholderTable 1.  Summaries of Characteristics of Cohorts Included in Each Meta-Analysis
Individual Clinical Features

Each study of clinical features reported only a selection of the 13 features evaluated. Table 2 shows which cohorts studied which clinical features and outlines the likelihood ratios from these studies. In most cases, when a particular feature was not reported it was unclear whether it had been examined but not reported or simply not examined. A few studies reported clinical features in such a way that the relevant data could not be extracted (for example, by combining features such as edema and swelling). We recorded these as “unable to extract relevant data” in Table 2.

Table Jump PlaceholderTable 2.  Likelihood Ratios for Each Reported Clinical Characteristic

Figure 2 shows the results of meta-analysis of individual clinical features. If a likelihood ratio greater than 2 is considered useful for ruling in DVT and a ratio less than 0.5 is useful for ruling out DVT, then only a history of DVT and malignancy are useful for ruling in DVT (based on the point estimates) and no individual feature is useful for ruling out DVT. Recent immobilization, recent surgery, or a difference in calf diameter is of borderline value in ruling in DVT, while absence of calf swelling or a difference in calf diameter is of borderline value in ruling out DVT.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Meta-analysis estimates of diagnostic value of clinical features of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).
Grahic Jump Location
Wells Clinical Probability Score

Three studies of the Wells score used dichotomized versions of the score; we did not include them in this analysis (1315). Table 3 shows the results of meta-analysis of the remaining 22 studies of the Wells score. A high Wells score markedly increases the probability of DVT (likelihood ratio, 5.2), whereas a low Wells score markedly reduces the probability of DVT (likelihood ratio, 0.25). Figure 3 shows how the Wells score performs as a function of the pretest probability of DVT (the population prevalence of DVT), assuming that the Wells scores are applied in a Bayesian manner. Most populations with suspected DVT have a prevalence of 10% to 40%. A population with a DVT prevalence of 24% (the median prevalence for studies included in the meta-analysis) would be categorized as follows: Twenty-three percent would have a high Wells score with a DVT prevalence of 62%, 39% would have an intermediate score with a prevalence of 21%, and 38% would have a low score with a prevalence of 7%. Six studies reported proximal and distal DVT separately (2)(1620)), showing that risk stratification was more accurate for proximal DVT than distal DVT in those studies.

Table Jump PlaceholderTable 3.  Results of Meta-Analysis of Wells Clinical Risk Score
Table Jump PlaceholderAppendix Table 1.  Characteristics of Cohorts Included in the Meta-Analysis
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3.
Post-test probability of deep venous thrombosis after high or low Wells scores as a function of pretest probability (population prevalence of deep venous thrombosis).
Grahic Jump Location

Heterogeneity is difficult to measure when the test under evaluation has 3 diagnostic categories, but it can be demonstrated graphically. Figure 4 shows the sensitivity and specificity of the Wells score for diagnosing all cases of DVT in each study.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4.
Performance of the Wells clinical risk score for detecting all episodes of deep venous thrombosis.

Two results are plotted from each study of the Wells score on the receiver-operating characteristic plane. Circles represent use of a high versus intermediate and low decision threshold (that is, only persons categorized as at high risk receive a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis). Triangles represent a high and intermediate versus low decision threshold (that is, persons categorized as at high or intermediate risk receive a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis). The point estimates and 95% CIs for pooled sensitivity and specificity for the 2 thresholds are also plotted as boxes.

Grahic Jump Location

By fitting a summary ROC curve to the data in Figure 4 and examining the influence of study-level covariates using meta-regression, we identified younger mean patient age (P = 0.011) and exclusion of persons with a history of thromboembolism (P = 0.020) as potentially important covariates associated with improved diagnostic performance. Assessment of the reference standard that was blinded to the results of clinical assessment almost showed a significant association with improved diagnostic performance (P = 0.056). Covariates examined but not statistically significant were setting for recruitment (for all settings, P > 0.3); exclusion of patients with suspicion of pulmonary embolus (P > 0.2); exclusion of pregnant women (P > 0.2); percentage of male participants (P > 0.2); whether the study used the original or modified Wells criteria (P > 0.2); prevalence of DVT in the cohort (P > 0.2); whether the investigators used a standardized form to collect data (P = 0.15); whether a physician assessed the patient (P > 0.2); use of single ultrasonography as a reference standard, compared with venography or initial ultrasonography plus follow-up or repeated scanning (P > 0.2); use of an independent reference standard (P > 0.2); and performance of clinical assessment that was blinded to the reference standard (P > 0.2).

Meta-analysis was repeated, stratified by the 2 significant covariates. The likelihood ratios for high and low Wells score, respectively, were 9.6 (95% CI, 7.0 to 13.3; P = 0.043 for heterogeneity) and 0.17 (CI, 0.13 to 0.23; P > 0.2) for studies that excluded patients with previous thromboembolism and 3.9 (CI, 3.0 to 5.2; P < 0.001) and 0.28 (CI, 0.24 to 0.33; P > 0.2) for studies that did not appear to exclude these patients. The same variables were 4.0 (CI, 2.5 to 6.5; P < 0.001) and 0.30 (CI, 0.24 to 0.39; P > 0.2) for studies with a mean participant age older than 60 years, 5.3 (CI, 3.9 to 7.2; P = 0.025) and 0.24 (CI, 0.20 to 0.29; P > 0.2) for studies with a mean participant age of 60 years or younger, and 6.8 (CI, 3.4 to 13.7; P < 0.001) and 0.23 (CI, 0.14 to 0.37; P = 0.056) for studies that did not report data on age. Hence, the Wells score seems to perform better in populations that exclude patients with previous thromboembolism and to perform worse in older populations.

Other Clinical Probability Scores

Seven cohorts were used to develop or evaluate a variety of other clinical scores (17)(2125)). Kahn (25), Oudega (21), and Constans (17)(22)) and their colleagues each used multivariate analyses to develop scores using 4 to 9 items to categorize patients as having high, moderate, or low risk for DVT. Each score stratified patients appropriately in their derivation cohorts, but none has been widely validated outside their initial setting; as a result, meta-analysis was not possible. Kiil and Moller (24) and Wojciechowski (23) used structured clinical assessment based on 5 or 8 items to identify the presence or absence of DVT. Neither reliably identified DVT.

Physicians' Empirical Judgments

The 8 studies of physicians' empirical judgments used different approaches to stratification: Four categorized patients into groups with low, intermediate, or high risk for DVT (2629), and 4 dichotomized assessment as low or high risk or dichotomized DVT as present or absent (13)(3032)). Table 3 shows meta-analysis of the 3-category assessments alongside the comparable estimates for the Wells score. Likelihood ratios for high and low empirical estimates are similar to those for the Wells score. These estimates are based on only 4 studies and have relatively wide CIs. Evidence also suggests significant heterogeneity, despite the limited number of studies. Meta-analysis of dichotomized physician judgments produced the following pooled estimates: sensitivity, 86.6% (CI, 80.7% to 91.2%; P = 0.152 for heterogeneity); specificity, 69.3% (CI, 64.4% to 73.9%; P < 0.001); positive likelihood ratio, 6.2 (CI, 1.0 to 40.0; P < 0.001); and negative likelihood ratio, 0.18 (CI, 0.13 to 0.26; P > 0.2). Again, the CIs are wide, and there is evidence of significant heterogeneity despite the small number of studies.

This meta-analysis has shown that individual clinical features, used in isolation, have limited value in diagnosing DVT. A history of DVT, known malignancy, recent immobilization, or recent surgery slightly increase the likelihood of DVT, as does the physical examination finding of difference in calf diameter. Absence of a history of calf swelling or no difference in calf diameter on examination slightly reduces the likelihood of DVT.

Clinical probability estimates, whether structured and based on specific criteria (Wells) or unstructured and based on empirical assessment, appear to provide more useful information. A high Wells score substantially increases the likelihood of DVT and indicates that definitive diagnostic testing is appropriate. A low Wells score substantially decreases the likelihood of DVT and indicates that a simple noninvasive test, such as the d-dimer assay, may be sufficient to rule out DVT. The Wells score has advantages over empirical assessment because it is standardized and reproducible and its estimated performance is based on more studies.

Six studies reported proximal and distal DVT separately for the Wells score (2)(1620)). Meta-analysis of these studies showed that the Wells score accurately categorizes proximal DVT but not distal DVT. This raises some doubt about repeating ultrasonography on the basis of clinical risk. Repeated ultrasonography is intended to detect propagating distal DVT, yet our analysis suggests that patients with distal DVT are more likely to be stratified into the intermediate-risk group than into the high-risk group.

We attempted to identify potential causes of the heterogeneity seen in the results of studies of the Wells score. Meta-regression showed that the Wells score performed better in cohorts that excluded patients with previous thromboembolism and performed worse in cohorts with an older mean age. The former finding may be confounded by the fact that the researchers who developed the Wells score were among the authors of 4 of the 7 studies that excluded patients with previous thromboembolism. We would expect a clinical score to perform better in the setting in which it was developed. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to conclude that using the Wells score in patients with previous thromboembolism is inappropriate.

Some limitations in our analysis need to be appreciated. Even after identifying many significant covariates, we could not explain the substantial heterogeneity in estimates of the diagnostic performance of the Wells score. The most likely causes for this heterogeneity are unreported differences in the study sample or the observers who assigned the Wells scores. Care should therefore be taken in extrapolating our findings between settings and observers. In addition, we did not search for unpublished data. It is unlikely that the poor diagnostic performance of individual clinical features could be attributed to publication bias, but unpublished data might further contribute to the heterogeneity observed in studies of the Wells score.

Further research is required to determine how the Wells score performs when used in different settings and by different observers. Comparison with empirical scoring by a variety of different observers would also be valuable. Recent studies (17)(22)) have identified new scores that may have performance similar to that of the Wells score but are simpler to assign. These scores require further evaluation. In the meantime, use of the Wells score appears to be the most valuable element of clinical assessment for the patient with suspected DVT.

Appendix: Details of the Summary ROC Meta-Regression Exploring the Influence of Study-Level Covariates on Diagnostic Accuracy of the Wells Score

Full details of all the statistical analyses and Forest plots of all the analyses are available from the authors.

The model is described in detail elsewhere (83), but a brief account is given below. Categorization using the Wells criteria can be considered a scale with 3 ordered categories and 2 cut-points at the category boundaries. It is assumed that the response for the i th individual in the k th study (Yik) arises from an underlying latent continuous variable, which is discretized at thresholds [thgr ]0k(= −∞) < [thgr ]1k< [thgr ]2k< [thgr ]3k(= ∞). Define Dik to indicate the true disease status of the i th patient in the k th study. An ordinal regression type model can then be constructed. Let [THgr ] = ([thgr ], α, β, γ, δ) be a vector containing thresholds from every study ([thgr ]), scale (α), and location (β) parameters, and regression scale coefficients (γ). The following probit model is constructed including a study covariate x:

The results from fitting this model to each covariate individually (that is, 14 separate models are fitted in all) are presented in Appendix Table 2.

Table Jump PlaceholderAppendix Table 2.  Results of Summary Receiver-Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis Examining How Each Covariate Individually Influenced the Shape of the Curve

The P value for the significance of each regression coefficient relating to the study-level covariates provides an omnibus test of influence of each coefficient across thresholds. In the main paper, pooled likelihood ratios are calculated for each of the 2 recognized Wells thresholds for different values of the study-level covariates that are significant at the 5% level in the above analysis (that is, age and history of DVT).

Note: If desired, a summary ROC curve can be obtained by plotting the pairs

at each threshold [thgr ] for each model reported above:

The Verity Steering Committee.  Venous Thromboembolism Registry Report 2003. Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd; 2003.
 
Wells PS, Hirsh J, Anderson DR, Lensing AW, Foster G, Kearon C. et al.  Accuracy of clinical assessment of deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1995; 345:1326-30. PubMed
CrossRef
 
Sackett DL.  The rational clinical examination. A primer on the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination. JAMA. 1992; 267:2638-44. PubMed
 
Kahn SR.  The clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis: integrating incidence, risk factors, and symptoms and signs. Arch Intern Med. 1998; 158:2315-23. PubMed
 
Anand SS, Wells PS, Hunt D, Brill-Edwards P, Cook D, Ginsberg JS.  Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis? JAMA. 1998; 279:1094-9. PubMed
 
Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH. et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999; 282:1061-6. PubMed
 
Zamora J, Muriel A, Abrair V.  MetaDiSc Version Beta (1.0.10): Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening tests. User manual. 2004.
 
Deeks JJ.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman DG Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.
 
Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR.  A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55:86-94. PubMed
 
Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG.  WinBUGS version 1.4. User manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2000.
 
Hellmich M, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Lambert PC.  A Bayesian approach to a general regression model for ROC curves. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18:436-43. PubMed
 
.  SAS software, version 8.4. User manual. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
 
Blattler W, Martinez I, Blattler IK.  Diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and alternative diseases in symptomatic outpatients. Eur J Intern Med. 2004; 15:305-311. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, Forgie M, Kearon C, Dreyer J. et al.  Evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of suspected deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:1227-35. PubMed
 
Tick LW, Ton E, van Voorthuizen T, Hovens MM, Leeuwenburgh I, Lobatto S. et al.  Practical diagnostic management of patients with clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis by clinical probability test, compression ultrasonography, and D-dimer test. Am J Med. 2002; 113:630-5. PubMed
 
Anderson DR, Wells PS, Stiell I, MacLeod B, Simms M, Gray L. et al.  Thrombosis in the emergency department: use of a clinical diagnosis model to safely avoid the need for urgent radiological investigation. Arch Intern Med. 1999; 159:477-82. PubMed
 
Constans J, Nelzy ML, Salmi LR, Skopinski S, Saby JC, Le Metayer P. et al.  Clinical prediction of lower limb deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic hospitalized patients. Thromb Haemost. 2001; 86:985-90. PubMed
 
Bucek RA, Quehenberger P, Feliks I, Handler S, Reiter M, Minar E.  Results of a new rapid d-dimer assay (cardiac d-dimer) in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Res. 2001; 103:17-23. PubMed
 
Funfsinn N, Caliezi C, Biasiutti FD, Korte W, Z'Brun A, Baumgartner I. et al.  Rapid D-dimer testing and pre-test clinical probability in the exclusion of deep venous thrombosis in symptomatic outpatients. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2001; 12:165-70. PubMed
 
Lennox AF, Delis KT, Serunkuma S, Zarka ZA, Daskalopoulou SE, Nicolaides AN.  Combination of a clinical risk assessment score and rapid whole blood D-dimer testing in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic patients. J Vasc Surg. 1999; 30:794-803. PubMed
 
Oudega R, Moons KG, Hoes AW.  Limited value of patient history and physical examination in diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in primary care. Fam Pract. 2005; 22:86-91. PubMed
 
Constans J, Boutinet C, Salmi LR, Saby JC, Nelzy ML, Baudouin P. et al.  Comparison of four clinical prediction scores for the diagnosis of lower limb deep venous thrombosis in outpatients. Am J Med. 2003; 115:436-40. PubMed
 
Wojciechowski J.  Efficiency of clinical evaluation and thermography in screening for deep venous thrombosis. Acta Thermographica. 1982; 7:1-17.
 
Kiil J, Moller JC.  Ultrasound and clinical diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis of the leg. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1979; 20:292-8. PubMed
 
Kahn SR, Joseph L, Abenhaim L, Leclerc JR.  Clinical prediction of deep vein thrombosis in patients with leg symptoms. Thromb Haemost. 1999; 81:353-7. PubMed
 
Arrive L, Monnier-Cholley L, Serru V, Carrat F, Vassal T, Dahan H. et al.  [D-Dimer determination combined with clinical probability for the diagnosis of leg venous thrombosis]. J Radiol. 2002; 83:337-40. PubMed
 
Cornuz J, Ghali WA, Hayoz D, Stoianov R, Depairon M, Yersin B.  Clinical prediction of deep venous thrombosis using two risk assessment methods in combination with rapid quantitative D-dimer testing. Am J Med. 2002; 112:198-203. PubMed
 
Miron MJ, Perrier A, Bounameaux H.  Clinical assessment of suspected deep vein thrombosis: comparison between a score and empirical assessment. J Intern Med. 2000; 247:249-54. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Hirsh J, Anderson DR, Lensing AW, Foster G, Kearon C. et al.  A simple clinical model for the diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis combined with impedance plethysmography: potential for an improvement in the diagnostic process. J Intern Med. 1998; 243:15-23. PubMed
 
Chan L, Reilly KM.  Physical examination in determining the outcomes of ultrasound for DVT [Letter]. Am J Emerg Med. 2000; 18:342. PubMed
 
Lucchi M, Bilancini S.  [Is clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis really unreliable?]. J Mal Vasc. 1993; 18:303-5. PubMed
 
Briet E, Boekhout MJ, Van Hulsteijn LH, Koch CW, Loose HW, Koch CT.  The clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. A study of ambulant patients in The Netherlands using Doppler ultrasonography and phlebography. Neth J Med. 1983; 26:29-33. PubMed
 
Ruiz-Gimenez N, Friera A, Artieda P, Caballero P, Sanchez Molini P, Morales M. et al.  Rapid D-dimer test combined a clinical model for deep vein thrombosis. Validation with ultrasonography and clinical follow-up in 383 patients. Thromb Haemost. 2004; 91:1237-46. PubMed
 
Ilkhanipour K, Wolfson AB, Walker H, Cillo J, Rolniak S, Cockley P. et al.  Combining clinical risk with D-dimer testing to rule out deep vein thrombosis. J Emerg Med. 2004; 27:233-9. PubMed
 
Bozic M, Blinc A, Stegnar M.  D-dimer, other markers of haemostasis activation and soluble adhesion molecules in patients with different clinical probabilities of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Res. 2002; 108:107-14. PubMed
 
Kilroy DA, Ireland S, Reid P, Goodacre S, Morris F.  Emergency department investigation of deep vein thrombosis. Emerg Med J. 2003; 20:29-32. PubMed
 
Johanning JM, Franklin DP, Thomas DD, Elmore JR.  D-dimer and calf circumference in the evaluation of outpatient deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2002; 36:877-80. PubMed
 
Kraaijenhagen RA, Piovella F, Bernardi E, Verlato F, Beckers EA, Koopman MM. et al.  Simplification of the diagnostic management of suspected deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162:907-11. PubMed
 
Lee YM, Ting AC, Cheng SW.  Diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in the lower extremity: correlation of clinical and duplex scan findings. Hong Kong Med J. 2002; 8:9-11. PubMed
 
Shields GP, Turnipseed S, Panacek EA, Melnikoff N, Gosselin R, White RH.  Validation of the Canadian clinical probability model for acute venous thrombosis. Acad Emerg Med. 2002; 9:561-6. PubMed
 
Wijeyaratne SM, Sheriffdeen AH.  The swollen leg: is it deep vein thrombosis? The experience of a tertiary referral center in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Med J. 2002; 47:16-8. PubMed
 
Dryjski M, O'Brien-Irr MS, Harris LM, Hassett J, Janicke D.  Evaluation of a screening protocol to exclude the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis among emergency department patients. J Vasc Surg. 2001; 34:1010-5. PubMed
 
Trujillo-Santos AJ, Garcia de Lucas MD, Rios-Tamayo R, Jimenez-Puente A, Garcia-Sanchez JE.  [Clinical and analytic diagnostic evaluation of deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs]. Med Clin (Barc). 2000; 114:46-9. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, Guy F, Mitchell M, Gray L. et al.  Application of a diagnostic clinical model for the management of hospitalized patients with suspected deep-vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 1999; 81:493-7. PubMed
 
Borg JY, Levesque H, Cailleux N, Franc C, Hellot MF, Courtois H.  Rapid quantitative D-dimer assay and clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis [Letter]. Thromb Haemost. 1997; 77:602-3. PubMed
 
Criado E, Burnham CB.  Predictive value of clinical criteria for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. Surgery. 1997; 122:578-83. PubMed
 
Lindqvist R.  Ultrasound as a complementary diagnostic method in deep vein thrombosis of the leg. Acta Med Scand. 1977; 201:435-8. PubMed
 
Oger E, Leroyer C, Le Moigne E, Pomey MP, Bressollette L, Clavier J. et al.  The value of a risk factor analysis in clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis. Respiration. 1997; 64:326-30. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, Guy F, Mitchell M, Gray L. et al.  Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management. Lancet. 1997; 350:1795-8. PubMed
 
D'Angelo A, D'Alessandro G, Tomassini L, Pittet JL, Dupuy G, Crippa L.  Evaluation of a new rapid quantitative D-dimer assay in patients with clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 1996; 75:412-6. PubMed
 
Glover JL, Bendick PJ.  Appropriate indications for venous duplex ultrasonographic examinations. Surgery. 1996; 120:725-30; discussion 730-1. PubMed
 
Landefeld CS, McGuire E, Cohen AM.  Clinical findings associated with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis: a basis for quantifying clinical judgment. Am J Med. 1990; 88:382-8. PubMed
 
Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Vigo M, Zambon G, Breda A, Cuppini S. et al.  [Unreliability of the clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis of the legs. A prospective study]. Ann Ital Med Int. 1988; 3:93-102. PubMed
 
Vaccaro P, Van Aman M, Miller S, Fachman J, Smead WL.  Shortcomings of physical examination and impedance plethysmography in the diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. Angiology. 1987; 38:232-5. PubMed
 
Pini M, Ria L, Pattacini C, Tagliaferri A, Poti R.  [Homan's sign revisited: is the clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis reliable?]. Recenti Prog Med. 1984; 75:650-7. PubMed
 
Sandler DA, Martin JF, Duncan JS, Blake GM, Ward P, Ramsay LE. et al.  Diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis: comparison of clinical evaluation, ultrasound, plethysmography, and venoscan with X-ray venogram. Lancet. 1984; 2:716-9. PubMed
 
Molloy W, English J, O'Dwyer R, O'Connell J.  Clinical findings in the diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Ir Med J. 1982; 75:119-20. PubMed
 
Vine HS, Hillman B, Hessel SJ.  Deep venous thrombosis: predictive value of signs and symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981; 136:167-71. PubMed
 
Cooperman M, Martin EW Jr, Satiani B, Clark M, Evans WE.  Detection of deep venous thrombosis by impedance plethysmography. Am J Surg. 1979; 137:252-4. PubMed
 
Cranley JJ, Canos AJ, Sull WJ.  The diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Fallibility of clinical symptoms and signs. Arch Surg. 1976; 111:34-6. PubMed
 
Richards KL, Armstrong JD Jr, Tikoff G, Hershgold EJ, Booth JL, Rampton JB.  Noninvasive diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 1976; 136:1091-6. PubMed
 
Haeger K.  The varicose patient: a nosologic investigation of venous insufficiency with special consideration of concomitant disease, symptomatology and etiology. Zentralbl Phlebol. 1968; 7:212-26. PubMed
 
Bounameaux H, Miron MJ, Perrier A.  Assessment of clinical probability of deep vein thrombosis: comparison of a score and empirical evaluation. Thromb Haemost. 1999; 538.
 
Donada C, Galofaro G, Maccioni A, Zeni G, Zambon G.  [Unreliability of the clinical diagnosis in deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs]. Minerva Med. 1990; 81:61-6. PubMed
 
Zambon G, Donada C, Zeni G, Macca F, Scatigna M, Prandoni P.  [Unreliability of clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities]. Minerva Cardioangiol. 1987; 35:133-7. PubMed
 
Ruiz-Gimenez N, Friera A, SanchezMolini P, Caballero P, Rodriguez-Salvanos F, Suarez C. et al.  [Deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities in an Emergency Department. Utility of a clinical diagnosis model]. Med Clin (Barc). 2002; 118:529-33. PubMed
 
Hill SL, Holtzman GI, Martin D, Evans P, Toler W, Goad K.  Selective use of the duplex scan in diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Am J Surg. 1995; 170:201-5. PubMed
 
Diamond PT, Macciocchi SN.  Predictive power of clinical symptoms in patients with presumptive deep venous thrombosis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997; 76:49-51. PubMed
 
Crippa L, Tomassini L, Rizzi B, Pattarini E, DAlessandro G, Vigano S.  Clinical pre test probability and D-dimer in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 1997; PD647.
 
Ginsberg JS, Kearon C, Douketis J, Turpie AG, Brill-Edwards P, Stevens P. et al.  The use of D-dimer testing and impedance plethysmographic examination in patients with clinical indications of deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157:1077-81. PubMed
 
Cei M, Bernini F, Mumoli N, Guglielmini R, Lombardo M, Mariotti F. et al.  A probabilistic approach to the diagnosis of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis in hospitalized patients. Internista. 2002; 10:3-168.
 
Walsh K, Kelaher N, Long K, Cervi P.  An algorithm for the investigation and management of patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis at a district general hospital. Postgrad Med J. 2002; 78:742-5. PubMed
 
Aschwanden M, Labs KH, Jeanneret C, Gehrig A, Jaeger KA.  The value of rapid D-dimer testing combined with structured clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 1999; 30:929-35. PubMed
 
Fric M, Pechan J, Mikulecky M, Valentin M, Simko I.  Evaluation of clinical signs and symptoms in active deep venous thrombosis of the calf. Cor Vasa. 1985; 27:346-52. PubMed
 
Bates SM, Grand'Maison A, Johnston M, Naguit I, Kovacs MJ, Ginsberg JS.  A latex D-dimer reliably excludes venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161:447-53. PubMed
 
Nypaver TJ, Shepard AD, Kiell CS, McPharlin M, Fenn N, Ernst CB.  Outpatient duplex scanning for deep vein thrombosis: parameters predictive of a negative study result. J Vasc Surg. 1993; 18:821-6. PubMed
 
Krahenbuhl B, Sheybani E, Bounameaux H.  Assessment of diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs using estimation of clinical probability. Thromb Haemost. 1987; 58:382.
 
Armstrong PA, Peoples JB, Vitello WA, Lemmon GW.  Improved selection criteria for ordering stat venous ultrasounds from the emergency department. Am J Surg. 1998; 176:226-8. PubMed
 
Motykie GD, Caprini JA, Arcelus JI, Zebala LP, Lee CE, Finke NM. et al.  Risk factor assessment in the management of patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis. Int Angiol. 2000; 19:47-51. PubMed
 
Siragusa S, Granzow K, Falaschi F, Porta C, Gamba G, Anastasio R. et al.  Pre-test clinical probability, D-dimer and low molecular weight heparin permit delayed imaging for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Blood. 2002; 100:1961.
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, Robinson KS, Gray L, Clement C.  Management of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis based on clinical probability. Thromb Haemost. 1997; O2403.
 
O'Donnell TF Jr, Abbott WM, Athanasoulis CA, Millan VG, Callow AD.  Diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in the outpatient by venography. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1980; 150:69-74. PubMed
 
Dukic V, Gastonis C.  Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholds. Biometrics. 2004; 59:936-46.
 

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of studies considered for the review.

*κ = 0.85. †κ = 0.86.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.
Meta-analysis estimates of diagnostic value of clinical features of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).
Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3.
Post-test probability of deep venous thrombosis after high or low Wells scores as a function of pretest probability (population prevalence of deep venous thrombosis).
Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4.
Performance of the Wells clinical risk score for detecting all episodes of deep venous thrombosis.

Two results are plotted from each study of the Wells score on the receiver-operating characteristic plane. Circles represent use of a high versus intermediate and low decision threshold (that is, only persons categorized as at high risk receive a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis). Triangles represent a high and intermediate versus low decision threshold (that is, persons categorized as at high or intermediate risk receive a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis). The point estimates and 95% CIs for pooled sensitivity and specificity for the 2 thresholds are also plotted as boxes.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

Table Jump PlaceholderTable 1.  Summaries of Characteristics of Cohorts Included in Each Meta-Analysis
Table Jump PlaceholderTable 2.  Likelihood Ratios for Each Reported Clinical Characteristic
Table Jump PlaceholderTable 3.  Results of Meta-Analysis of Wells Clinical Risk Score
Table Jump PlaceholderAppendix Table 1.  Characteristics of Cohorts Included in the Meta-Analysis
Table Jump PlaceholderAppendix Table 2.  Results of Summary Receiver-Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis Examining How Each Covariate Individually Influenced the Shape of the Curve

References

The Verity Steering Committee.  Venous Thromboembolism Registry Report 2003. Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd; 2003.
 
Wells PS, Hirsh J, Anderson DR, Lensing AW, Foster G, Kearon C. et al.  Accuracy of clinical assessment of deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1995; 345:1326-30. PubMed
CrossRef
 
Sackett DL.  The rational clinical examination. A primer on the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination. JAMA. 1992; 267:2638-44. PubMed
 
Kahn SR.  The clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis: integrating incidence, risk factors, and symptoms and signs. Arch Intern Med. 1998; 158:2315-23. PubMed
 
Anand SS, Wells PS, Hunt D, Brill-Edwards P, Cook D, Ginsberg JS.  Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis? JAMA. 1998; 279:1094-9. PubMed
 
Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH. et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999; 282:1061-6. PubMed
 
Zamora J, Muriel A, Abrair V.  MetaDiSc Version Beta (1.0.10): Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening tests. User manual. 2004.
 
Deeks JJ.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman DG Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.
 
Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR.  A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55:86-94. PubMed
 
Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG.  WinBUGS version 1.4. User manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2000.
 
Hellmich M, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Lambert PC.  A Bayesian approach to a general regression model for ROC curves. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18:436-43. PubMed
 
.  SAS software, version 8.4. User manual. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
 
Blattler W, Martinez I, Blattler IK.  Diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and alternative diseases in symptomatic outpatients. Eur J Intern Med. 2004; 15:305-311. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, Forgie M, Kearon C, Dreyer J. et al.  Evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of suspected deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:1227-35. PubMed
 
Tick LW, Ton E, van Voorthuizen T, Hovens MM, Leeuwenburgh I, Lobatto S. et al.  Practical diagnostic management of patients with clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis by clinical probability test, compression ultrasonography, and D-dimer test. Am J Med. 2002; 113:630-5. PubMed
 
Anderson DR, Wells PS, Stiell I, MacLeod B, Simms M, Gray L. et al.  Thrombosis in the emergency department: use of a clinical diagnosis model to safely avoid the need for urgent radiological investigation. Arch Intern Med. 1999; 159:477-82. PubMed
 
Constans J, Nelzy ML, Salmi LR, Skopinski S, Saby JC, Le Metayer P. et al.  Clinical prediction of lower limb deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic hospitalized patients. Thromb Haemost. 2001; 86:985-90. PubMed
 
Bucek RA, Quehenberger P, Feliks I, Handler S, Reiter M, Minar E.  Results of a new rapid d-dimer assay (cardiac d-dimer) in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Res. 2001; 103:17-23. PubMed
 
Funfsinn N, Caliezi C, Biasiutti FD, Korte W, Z'Brun A, Baumgartner I. et al.  Rapid D-dimer testing and pre-test clinical probability in the exclusion of deep venous thrombosis in symptomatic outpatients. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2001; 12:165-70. PubMed
 
Lennox AF, Delis KT, Serunkuma S, Zarka ZA, Daskalopoulou SE, Nicolaides AN.  Combination of a clinical risk assessment score and rapid whole blood D-dimer testing in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic patients. J Vasc Surg. 1999; 30:794-803. PubMed
 
Oudega R, Moons KG, Hoes AW.  Limited value of patient history and physical examination in diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in primary care. Fam Pract. 2005; 22:86-91. PubMed
 
Constans J, Boutinet C, Salmi LR, Saby JC, Nelzy ML, Baudouin P. et al.  Comparison of four clinical prediction scores for the diagnosis of lower limb deep venous thrombosis in outpatients. Am J Med. 2003; 115:436-40. PubMed
 
Wojciechowski J.  Efficiency of clinical evaluation and thermography in screening for deep venous thrombosis. Acta Thermographica. 1982; 7:1-17.
 
Kiil J, Moller JC.  Ultrasound and clinical diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis of the leg. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1979; 20:292-8. PubMed
 
Kahn SR, Joseph L, Abenhaim L, Leclerc JR.  Clinical prediction of deep vein thrombosis in patients with leg symptoms. Thromb Haemost. 1999; 81:353-7. PubMed
 
Arrive L, Monnier-Cholley L, Serru V, Carrat F, Vassal T, Dahan H. et al.  [D-Dimer determination combined with clinical probability for the diagnosis of leg venous thrombosis]. J Radiol. 2002; 83:337-40. PubMed
 
Cornuz J, Ghali WA, Hayoz D, Stoianov R, Depairon M, Yersin B.  Clinical prediction of deep venous thrombosis using two risk assessment methods in combination with rapid quantitative D-dimer testing. Am J Med. 2002; 112:198-203. PubMed
 
Miron MJ, Perrier A, Bounameaux H.  Clinical assessment of suspected deep vein thrombosis: comparison between a score and empirical assessment. J Intern Med. 2000; 247:249-54. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Hirsh J, Anderson DR, Lensing AW, Foster G, Kearon C. et al.  A simple clinical model for the diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis combined with impedance plethysmography: potential for an improvement in the diagnostic process. J Intern Med. 1998; 243:15-23. PubMed
 
Chan L, Reilly KM.  Physical examination in determining the outcomes of ultrasound for DVT [Letter]. Am J Emerg Med. 2000; 18:342. PubMed
 
Lucchi M, Bilancini S.  [Is clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis really unreliable?]. J Mal Vasc. 1993; 18:303-5. PubMed
 
Briet E, Boekhout MJ, Van Hulsteijn LH, Koch CW, Loose HW, Koch CT.  The clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. A study of ambulant patients in The Netherlands using Doppler ultrasonography and phlebography. Neth J Med. 1983; 26:29-33. PubMed
 
Ruiz-Gimenez N, Friera A, Artieda P, Caballero P, Sanchez Molini P, Morales M. et al.  Rapid D-dimer test combined a clinical model for deep vein thrombosis. Validation with ultrasonography and clinical follow-up in 383 patients. Thromb Haemost. 2004; 91:1237-46. PubMed
 
Ilkhanipour K, Wolfson AB, Walker H, Cillo J, Rolniak S, Cockley P. et al.  Combining clinical risk with D-dimer testing to rule out deep vein thrombosis. J Emerg Med. 2004; 27:233-9. PubMed
 
Bozic M, Blinc A, Stegnar M.  D-dimer, other markers of haemostasis activation and soluble adhesion molecules in patients with different clinical probabilities of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Res. 2002; 108:107-14. PubMed
 
Kilroy DA, Ireland S, Reid P, Goodacre S, Morris F.  Emergency department investigation of deep vein thrombosis. Emerg Med J. 2003; 20:29-32. PubMed
 
Johanning JM, Franklin DP, Thomas DD, Elmore JR.  D-dimer and calf circumference in the evaluation of outpatient deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2002; 36:877-80. PubMed
 
Kraaijenhagen RA, Piovella F, Bernardi E, Verlato F, Beckers EA, Koopman MM. et al.  Simplification of the diagnostic management of suspected deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162:907-11. PubMed
 
Lee YM, Ting AC, Cheng SW.  Diagnosing deep vein thrombosis in the lower extremity: correlation of clinical and duplex scan findings. Hong Kong Med J. 2002; 8:9-11. PubMed
 
Shields GP, Turnipseed S, Panacek EA, Melnikoff N, Gosselin R, White RH.  Validation of the Canadian clinical probability model for acute venous thrombosis. Acad Emerg Med. 2002; 9:561-6. PubMed
 
Wijeyaratne SM, Sheriffdeen AH.  The swollen leg: is it deep vein thrombosis? The experience of a tertiary referral center in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Med J. 2002; 47:16-8. PubMed
 
Dryjski M, O'Brien-Irr MS, Harris LM, Hassett J, Janicke D.  Evaluation of a screening protocol to exclude the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis among emergency department patients. J Vasc Surg. 2001; 34:1010-5. PubMed
 
Trujillo-Santos AJ, Garcia de Lucas MD, Rios-Tamayo R, Jimenez-Puente A, Garcia-Sanchez JE.  [Clinical and analytic diagnostic evaluation of deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs]. Med Clin (Barc). 2000; 114:46-9. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, Guy F, Mitchell M, Gray L. et al.  Application of a diagnostic clinical model for the management of hospitalized patients with suspected deep-vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 1999; 81:493-7. PubMed
 
Borg JY, Levesque H, Cailleux N, Franc C, Hellot MF, Courtois H.  Rapid quantitative D-dimer assay and clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis [Letter]. Thromb Haemost. 1997; 77:602-3. PubMed
 
Criado E, Burnham CB.  Predictive value of clinical criteria for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. Surgery. 1997; 122:578-83. PubMed
 
Lindqvist R.  Ultrasound as a complementary diagnostic method in deep vein thrombosis of the leg. Acta Med Scand. 1977; 201:435-8. PubMed
 
Oger E, Leroyer C, Le Moigne E, Pomey MP, Bressollette L, Clavier J. et al.  The value of a risk factor analysis in clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis. Respiration. 1997; 64:326-30. PubMed
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, Guy F, Mitchell M, Gray L. et al.  Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management. Lancet. 1997; 350:1795-8. PubMed
 
D'Angelo A, D'Alessandro G, Tomassini L, Pittet JL, Dupuy G, Crippa L.  Evaluation of a new rapid quantitative D-dimer assay in patients with clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 1996; 75:412-6. PubMed
 
Glover JL, Bendick PJ.  Appropriate indications for venous duplex ultrasonographic examinations. Surgery. 1996; 120:725-30; discussion 730-1. PubMed
 
Landefeld CS, McGuire E, Cohen AM.  Clinical findings associated with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis: a basis for quantifying clinical judgment. Am J Med. 1990; 88:382-8. PubMed
 
Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Vigo M, Zambon G, Breda A, Cuppini S. et al.  [Unreliability of the clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis of the legs. A prospective study]. Ann Ital Med Int. 1988; 3:93-102. PubMed
 
Vaccaro P, Van Aman M, Miller S, Fachman J, Smead WL.  Shortcomings of physical examination and impedance plethysmography in the diagnosis of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. Angiology. 1987; 38:232-5. PubMed
 
Pini M, Ria L, Pattacini C, Tagliaferri A, Poti R.  [Homan's sign revisited: is the clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis reliable?]. Recenti Prog Med. 1984; 75:650-7. PubMed
 
Sandler DA, Martin JF, Duncan JS, Blake GM, Ward P, Ramsay LE. et al.  Diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis: comparison of clinical evaluation, ultrasound, plethysmography, and venoscan with X-ray venogram. Lancet. 1984; 2:716-9. PubMed
 
Molloy W, English J, O'Dwyer R, O'Connell J.  Clinical findings in the diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Ir Med J. 1982; 75:119-20. PubMed
 
Vine HS, Hillman B, Hessel SJ.  Deep venous thrombosis: predictive value of signs and symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981; 136:167-71. PubMed
 
Cooperman M, Martin EW Jr, Satiani B, Clark M, Evans WE.  Detection of deep venous thrombosis by impedance plethysmography. Am J Surg. 1979; 137:252-4. PubMed
 
Cranley JJ, Canos AJ, Sull WJ.  The diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Fallibility of clinical symptoms and signs. Arch Surg. 1976; 111:34-6. PubMed
 
Richards KL, Armstrong JD Jr, Tikoff G, Hershgold EJ, Booth JL, Rampton JB.  Noninvasive diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 1976; 136:1091-6. PubMed
 
Haeger K.  The varicose patient: a nosologic investigation of venous insufficiency with special consideration of concomitant disease, symptomatology and etiology. Zentralbl Phlebol. 1968; 7:212-26. PubMed
 
Bounameaux H, Miron MJ, Perrier A.  Assessment of clinical probability of deep vein thrombosis: comparison of a score and empirical evaluation. Thromb Haemost. 1999; 538.
 
Donada C, Galofaro G, Maccioni A, Zeni G, Zambon G.  [Unreliability of the clinical diagnosis in deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs]. Minerva Med. 1990; 81:61-6. PubMed
 
Zambon G, Donada C, Zeni G, Macca F, Scatigna M, Prandoni P.  [Unreliability of clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities]. Minerva Cardioangiol. 1987; 35:133-7. PubMed
 
Ruiz-Gimenez N, Friera A, SanchezMolini P, Caballero P, Rodriguez-Salvanos F, Suarez C. et al.  [Deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities in an Emergency Department. Utility of a clinical diagnosis model]. Med Clin (Barc). 2002; 118:529-33. PubMed
 
Hill SL, Holtzman GI, Martin D, Evans P, Toler W, Goad K.  Selective use of the duplex scan in diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Am J Surg. 1995; 170:201-5. PubMed
 
Diamond PT, Macciocchi SN.  Predictive power of clinical symptoms in patients with presumptive deep venous thrombosis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997; 76:49-51. PubMed
 
Crippa L, Tomassini L, Rizzi B, Pattarini E, DAlessandro G, Vigano S.  Clinical pre test probability and D-dimer in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 1997; PD647.
 
Ginsberg JS, Kearon C, Douketis J, Turpie AG, Brill-Edwards P, Stevens P. et al.  The use of D-dimer testing and impedance plethysmographic examination in patients with clinical indications of deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157:1077-81. PubMed
 
Cei M, Bernini F, Mumoli N, Guglielmini R, Lombardo M, Mariotti F. et al.  A probabilistic approach to the diagnosis of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis in hospitalized patients. Internista. 2002; 10:3-168.
 
Walsh K, Kelaher N, Long K, Cervi P.  An algorithm for the investigation and management of patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis at a district general hospital. Postgrad Med J. 2002; 78:742-5. PubMed
 
Aschwanden M, Labs KH, Jeanneret C, Gehrig A, Jaeger KA.  The value of rapid D-dimer testing combined with structured clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 1999; 30:929-35. PubMed
 
Fric M, Pechan J, Mikulecky M, Valentin M, Simko I.  Evaluation of clinical signs and symptoms in active deep venous thrombosis of the calf. Cor Vasa. 1985; 27:346-52. PubMed
 
Bates SM, Grand'Maison A, Johnston M, Naguit I, Kovacs MJ, Ginsberg JS.  A latex D-dimer reliably excludes venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161:447-53. PubMed
 
Nypaver TJ, Shepard AD, Kiell CS, McPharlin M, Fenn N, Ernst CB.  Outpatient duplex scanning for deep vein thrombosis: parameters predictive of a negative study result. J Vasc Surg. 1993; 18:821-6. PubMed
 
Krahenbuhl B, Sheybani E, Bounameaux H.  Assessment of diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs using estimation of clinical probability. Thromb Haemost. 1987; 58:382.
 
Armstrong PA, Peoples JB, Vitello WA, Lemmon GW.  Improved selection criteria for ordering stat venous ultrasounds from the emergency department. Am J Surg. 1998; 176:226-8. PubMed
 
Motykie GD, Caprini JA, Arcelus JI, Zebala LP, Lee CE, Finke NM. et al.  Risk factor assessment in the management of patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis. Int Angiol. 2000; 19:47-51. PubMed
 
Siragusa S, Granzow K, Falaschi F, Porta C, Gamba G, Anastasio R. et al.  Pre-test clinical probability, D-dimer and low molecular weight heparin permit delayed imaging for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Blood. 2002; 100:1961.
 
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, Robinson KS, Gray L, Clement C.  Management of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis based on clinical probability. Thromb Haemost. 1997; O2403.
 
O'Donnell TF Jr, Abbott WM, Athanasoulis CA, Millan VG, Callow AD.  Diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in the outpatient by venography. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1980; 150:69-74. PubMed
 
Dukic V, Gastonis C.  Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy assessment studies with varying number of thresholds. Biometrics. 2004; 59:936-46.
 

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 Diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis

The summary below is from the full report titled “Meta-Analysis: The Value of Clinical Assessment in the Diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis.” It is in the 19 July 2005 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 143, pages 129-139). The authors are S. Goodacre, A.J. Sutton, and F.C. Sampson.

Read More...

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

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)