↓ Skip to main content

How to exclude pulmonary embolism in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a comparison of predictive scores

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, May 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to exclude pulmonary embolism in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a comparison of predictive scores
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, May 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12959-023-00492-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jakob Vielhauer, Christopher Benesch, Anna Pernpruner, Anna-Lena Johlke, Johannes Christian Hellmuth, Maximilian Muenchhoff, Clemens Scherer, Nicola Fink, Bastian Sabel, Christian Schulz, Julia Mayerle, Ujjwal Mukund Mahajan, Hans Christian Stubbe

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is an important complication of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 is associated with respiratory impairment and a pro-coagulative state, rendering PE more likely and difficult to recognize. Several decision algorithms relying on clinical features and D-dimer have been established. High prevalence of PE and elevated Ddimer in patients with COVID-19 might impair the performance of common decision algorithms. Here, we aimed to validate and compare five common decision algorithms implementing age adjusted Ddimer, the GENEVA, and Wells scores as well as the PEGeD- and YEARS-algorithms in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In this single center study, we included patients who were admitted to our tertiary care hospital in the COVID-19 Registry of the LMU Munich. We retrospectively selected patients who received a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) or pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy (V/Q) for suspected PE. The performances of five commonly used diagnostic algorithms (age-adjusted D-dimer, GENEVA score, PEGeD-algorithm, Wells score, and YEARS-algorithm) were compared. We identified 413 patients with suspected PE who received a CTPA or V/Q confirming 62 PEs (15%). Among them, 358 patients with 48 PEs (13%) could be evaluated for performance of all algorithms. Patients with PE were older and their overall outcome was worse compared to patients without PE. Of the above five diagnostic algorithms, the PEGeD- and YEARS-algorithms performed best, reducing diagnostic imaging by 14% and 15% respectively with a sensitivity of 95.7% and 95.6%. The GENEVA score was able to reduce CTPA or V/Q by 32.2% but suffered from a low sensitivity (78.6%). Age-adjusted D-dimer and Wells score could not significantly reduce diagnostic imaging. The PEGeD- and YEARS-algorithms outperformed other tested decision algorithms and worked well in patients admitted with COVID-19. These findings need independent validation in a prospective study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Unknown 4 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#14,924,665
of 25,884,216 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#191
of 428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,175
of 412,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,884,216 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 412,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.