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

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used to diagnose deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients for whom ultrasound examination is inappropriate or unfeasible. We undertook a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for DVT. We searched databases of medical literature and citation lists of retrieved articles. We selected studies that compared MRI with a reference standard in patients with suspected DVT or suspected pulmonary embolus, or high-risk asymptomatic patients. Data were analysed by random effects meta-analysis. We included 14 articles in the meta-analysis. Most compared MRI with venography in patients with clinically suspected DVT. The pooled estimate of sensitivity was 91.5% (95% CI: 87.5-94.5%) and the pooled estimate of specificity was 94.8% (95% CI: 92.6-96.5%). Sensitivity for proximal DVT was higher than sensitivity for distal DVT (93.9% versus 62.1%). However, pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution as estimates of both sensitivity and specificity were subject to significant heterogeneity (P<0.001). Individual studies reported sensitivity ranging from zero to 100%, while specificity ranged from 43 to 100%. MRI has equivalent sensitivity and specificity to ultrasound for diagnosis of DVT, but has been evaluated in many fewer studies, using a variety of different techniques.

et al. What role for statins? A review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(19). Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA web site (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Pharmaceutical Panel and funded as project number 96/14/01. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

Background: Opioids, such as heroin, kill more people worldwide by overdose than any other type of drug, and death rates associated with opioid poisoning in the UK are at record levels (World Drug Report 2018 [Internet].