You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 298 No. 23, December 19, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letter
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Pulmonary Diseases, Other
 •Angiology
 •Computed Tomography
 •Venous Thromboembolism
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Imaging of Pulmonary Embolism

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Jeffrey Glassroth, MD

JAMA. 2007;298(23):2788-2789.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The study by Anderson and colleagues1 in this issue of JAMA convincingly demonstrates that computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is not inferior to ventilation-perfusion (Formula/Formula) lung scanning for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE). Confirmation on this point is comforting because CTPA has had a wide range of sensitivities reported for detection of PE2 but nevertheless has largely supplanted Formula/Formulascanning for several years for this purpose.3

This study is also notable for a number of additional reasons. First, the investigators' study design and management algorithms use D-dimer testing,4 structured pretest probability (of PE) assessment,5 and venous ultrasound of the lower extremities to identify deep venous thrombosis. In essence, the study represented a unique head-to-head comparison of Formula/Formula scanning and CTPA conducted in a manner that duplicated real-world best-practice conditions. Moreover, because this was a multicenter randomized study with a large number of participants, these . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.


RELATED LETTER

Evaluation of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy
Mark D. Siegel
JAMA. 2008;299(14):1665.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography vs Ventilation-Perfusion Lung Scanning in Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Controlled Trial
David R. Anderson, Susan R. Kahn, Marc A. Rodger, Michael J. Kovacs, Tim Morris, Andrew Hirsch, Eddy Lang, Ian Stiell, George Kovacs, Jon Dreyer, Carol Dennie, Yannick Cartier, David Barnes, Erica Burton, Susan Pleasance, Chris Skedgel, Keith O’Rouke, and Philip S. Wells
JAMA. 2007;298(23):2743-2753.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Evaluation of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy
Siegel
JAMA 2008;299:1665-1665.
FULL TEXT  

CT-A Outperforms V/Q Scan for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism
JWatch Emergency Med. 2008;2008:1-1.
FULL TEXT  

What Is the Best Approach to Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism?
JWatch General 2008;2008:6-6.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.