links: [Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with d-Dimer Adjusted to Clinical Probability.](bookends://sonnysoftware.com/ref/DL/230926), [PEGeD Study - Is It Safe to Adjust the D-Dimer Threshold for Clinical Probability? - REBEL EM](cubox://card?id=6826435323707264958), [PEG-ED - Emergency Medicine Literature of Note](cubox://card?id=6826101068254937644), [PEG-eD -- The Bottom Line](cubox://card?id=7170457847908534866) related trials: [[YEARS]], [[Pregnancy-Adapted YEARS algorithm]] tags: #incomplete # Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with d-Dimer Adjusted to Clinical Probability **Journal** - [[NEJM]] **Authors** - **Year** - 2019 # Clinical Question ## PICO - **population / problem** - **intervention / treatment** - **Comparison** - **Outcome** # Background # What this paper adds to the body of knowledge # What they did ## design - eg retrospective case controlled - randomisation - follow up - power analysis - type of analysis (eg intention to treat) - setting - blinding - definitions - inclusion - exclusion # Results # Discussion *Strengths:* *Limitations:* # Conclusions ## author conclusion ## my conclusion - Using a d-dimer cut off adjusted for clinical probability appears to be a safe strategy to reduce the use of diagnostic imaging in low-risk patients with PE - This approach should be adopted by Emergency Departments in the work-up of patients suspected of having pulmonary embolism # should this article change practice?