EBQ:PERC Rule Validation: Difference between revisions
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Clinical Question== | ==Clinical Question== | ||
Can risk stratification to low risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) in combination with a negative Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC) score reduce the probability of PE to less than 2%? | |||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 26 November 2013
Under Review Journal Club Article
Kline J.A. et al. "Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria". Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2008. 6(5):772–780.
PubMed Full text PDF
PubMed Full text PDF
Clinical Question
Can risk stratification to low risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) in combination with a negative Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC) score reduce the probability of PE to less than 2%?
Conclusion
The combination of gestalt estimate of low suspicion for PE and PERC(-) reduces the probability of VTE to below 2% in about 20% of outpatients with suspected PE.
Design
Population Studied
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
.
Baseline Characteristics
Interventions
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes
Discussion
Criticism
Funding
CME
Related Publications
- ACEP clinical policy; Ann Emerg Med 2011; 57:628-650.
