↓ Skip to main content

The diagnostic utility of D-dimer and other clinical variables in pregnant and post-partum patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
The diagnostic utility of D-dimer and other clinical variables in pregnant and post-partum patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12245-018-0169-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyun Choi, Dinesh Krishnamoorthy

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy remains one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in the developed world. However, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence resulting in a lack of consensus in managing this group of patients. The aims of the study were to address the diagnostic utility of D-dimer for suspected PE in pregnant and post-partum patients and to identify any clinical presentation variables that are predictors of PE in this group of patients. A retrospective case note review of 152 pregnant and post-partum patients who underwent diagnostic imaging (ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) or computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA)) for suspected PE at a tertiary teaching hospital from 2007 to 2011 was conducted. The reference range for D-dimer was less than 0.5 mg/L as being normal. The following variables were also assessed in terms of their predictive capability for PE diagnosis in pregnancy: heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), shock index (SI) and A-a gradient. The application of D-dimer testing for suspected PE in this study population had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 73-100%), specificity of 42% (95% CI, 31-53%) and a likelihood negative ratio of 0. None of the clinical variables were significant predictors of PE according to regression analyses. There is supportive evidence that a negative D-dimer result is useful as a means of ruling out PE in pregnant and post-partum patients. However, we need a larger prospective observational study to collaborate the findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Other 5 16%
Unspecified 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Unspecified 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 29%
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 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,240,381
of 24,914,266 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#332
of 638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,738
of 337,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,914,266 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,587 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.