2017
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02225-2016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Symptoms, signs, suspicion and setting: a PESI score for cancer-associated pulmonary embolism?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that purely radiological inclusion criteria have enrolled an unselected cohort that includes very ill non-ambulatory patients. Even the 4S derivative rule from the EPIPHANY dataset does little more than categorize the truly asymptomatic UPE (TAUPE)-only subgroup of the ambulatory population 26,27 leaving the rest of the cohort un-stratified.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This suggests that purely radiological inclusion criteria have enrolled an unselected cohort that includes very ill non-ambulatory patients. Even the 4S derivative rule from the EPIPHANY dataset does little more than categorize the truly asymptomatic UPE (TAUPE)-only subgroup of the ambulatory population 26,27 leaving the rest of the cohort un-stratified.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the score is only valid for patients with PE; the performance in patients with cancer is modest (area under the curve [AUC], 0.7), and cancer as a single variable is very heavily weighted in the score, potentially limiting dispersion of the model. 7 8 In contrast, POMPE-C was derived from a population with PE and cancer; it has a better performance in external validation (AUC, 0.8), but is only specific to patients with cancer who present with PE. 9 10 11 These scores have a segmented and limited approach to mortality prediction in CT; the scores assume that only patients with PE will have a high mortality.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%