A comparison of three rapid D‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism
We compared three rapid d‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Patients presenting to four teaching hospitals with the possible diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were investigated with a combination of clinical likelihood, d‐dimer (SimpliRED) and initial n...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of haematology 2001-10, Vol.115 (1), p.140-144 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 144 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 140 |
| container_title | British journal of haematology |
| container_volume | 115 |
| creator | Kovacs, Michael J. MacKinnon, Karen M. Anderson, David O'Rourke, Keith Keeney, Michael Kearon, Clive Ginsberg, Jeffrey Wells, Philip S. |
| description | We compared three rapid d‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Patients presenting to four teaching hospitals with the possible diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were investigated with a combination of clinical likelihood, d‐dimer (SimpliRED) and initial non‐invasive testing. Patients were assigned as being positive or negative for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism based on their three‐month outcome and initial test results. The three d‐dimer methods compared were: (a) Accuclot d‐dimer (b) IL‐Test d‐dimer (c) SimpliRED d‐dimer. Of 993 patients, 141 had objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The sensitivity of SimpliRED, Accuclot and IL‐Test were 79, 90 and 87% respectively. All three d‐dimer tests gave similar negative predictive values. The SimpliRED d‐dimer was found to be less sensitive than the Accuclot or IL‐Test. When combined with pre‐test probability all three methods are probably acceptable for use in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03060.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72304758</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72304758</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4720-938717b6adfd964dd14a3e3a98822a05d607666a744be0bdb485fc3a92f138643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtO3DAUhq0KVAbaV6isSnSXcHyJ7VmwoNwGhNRNu-jKcmKn41ESD_ZMCzsegWfkSXCYUZFYsbCOpfP9R78-hDCBkgAXR4uSMFEVlHBSUgBSAgMB5d0HNPm_2EETAJBFDqg9tJ_SIoMMKvIR7REiKeWUT9DvE9yEfmmiT2HAocWreXQOR7P0Fp89PTxa37uIe7eaB5twG2ImHLbe_BlC8mmM_HVDWKcxGfo6uPw6n_pPaLc1XXKft_MA_bo4_3k6K25-XF6dntwUDZcUiilTkshaGNvaqeDWEm6YY2aqFKUGKitACiGM5Lx2UNuaq6pt8p62hCnB2QH6trm7jOF27dJK9z41ruvM4HItLSkDLiuVwa9vwEVYxyF302SqKqFAQYbUBmpiSCm6Vi-j70281wT06F4v9KhYj4r16F6_uNd3Ofple39d986-BreyM3C4BUxqTNdGMzQ-vXKcUKB87HC84f75zt2_u4D-fj0bf-wZoaCe6w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>198568080</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of three rapid D‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Kovacs, Michael J. ; MacKinnon, Karen M. ; Anderson, David ; O'Rourke, Keith ; Keeney, Michael ; Kearon, Clive ; Ginsberg, Jeffrey ; Wells, Philip S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kovacs, Michael J. ; MacKinnon, Karen M. ; Anderson, David ; O'Rourke, Keith ; Keeney, Michael ; Kearon, Clive ; Ginsberg, Jeffrey ; Wells, Philip S.</creatorcontrib><description>We compared three rapid d‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Patients presenting to four teaching hospitals with the possible diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were investigated with a combination of clinical likelihood, d‐dimer (SimpliRED) and initial non‐invasive testing. Patients were assigned as being positive or negative for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism based on their three‐month outcome and initial test results. The three d‐dimer methods compared were: (a) Accuclot d‐dimer (b) IL‐Test d‐dimer (c) SimpliRED d‐dimer. Of 993 patients, 141 had objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The sensitivity of SimpliRED, Accuclot and IL‐Test were 79, 90 and 87% respectively. All three d‐dimer tests gave similar negative predictive values. The SimpliRED d‐dimer was found to be less sensitive than the Accuclot or IL‐Test. When combined with pre‐test probability all three methods are probably acceptable for use in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1048</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03060.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11722424</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJHEAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Blood coagulation ; deep vein thrombosis ; diagnosis ; d‐dimers ; Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products - analysis ; Hematology ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Medical sciences ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Probability ; pulmonary embolism ; Pulmonary Embolism - diagnosis ; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic ; Risk Factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Venous Thrombosis - diagnosis</subject><ispartof>British journal of haematology, 2001-10, Vol.115 (1), p.140-144</ispartof><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd. Oct 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4720-938717b6adfd964dd14a3e3a98822a05d607666a744be0bdb485fc3a92f138643</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4720-938717b6adfd964dd14a3e3a98822a05d607666a744be0bdb485fc3a92f138643</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2141.2001.03060.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2141.2001.03060.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=14120240$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11722424$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kovacs, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacKinnon, Karen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Rourke, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keeney, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearon, Clive</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ginsberg, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wells, Philip S.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of three rapid D‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism</title><title>British journal of haematology</title><addtitle>Br J Haematol</addtitle><description>We compared three rapid d‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Patients presenting to four teaching hospitals with the possible diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were investigated with a combination of clinical likelihood, d‐dimer (SimpliRED) and initial non‐invasive testing. Patients were assigned as being positive or negative for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism based on their three‐month outcome and initial test results. The three d‐dimer methods compared were: (a) Accuclot d‐dimer (b) IL‐Test d‐dimer (c) SimpliRED d‐dimer. Of 993 patients, 141 had objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The sensitivity of SimpliRED, Accuclot and IL‐Test were 79, 90 and 87% respectively. All three d‐dimer tests gave similar negative predictive values. The SimpliRED d‐dimer was found to be less sensitive than the Accuclot or IL‐Test. When combined with pre‐test probability all three methods are probably acceptable for use in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Blood coagulation</subject><subject>deep vein thrombosis</subject><subject>diagnosis</subject><subject>d‐dimers</subject><subject>Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products - analysis</subject><subject>Hematology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>pulmonary embolism</subject><subject>Pulmonary Embolism - diagnosis</subject><subject>Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Venous Thrombosis - diagnosis</subject><issn>0007-1048</issn><issn>1365-2141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtO3DAUhq0KVAbaV6isSnSXcHyJ7VmwoNwGhNRNu-jKcmKn41ESD_ZMCzsegWfkSXCYUZFYsbCOpfP9R78-hDCBkgAXR4uSMFEVlHBSUgBSAgMB5d0HNPm_2EETAJBFDqg9tJ_SIoMMKvIR7REiKeWUT9DvE9yEfmmiT2HAocWreXQOR7P0Fp89PTxa37uIe7eaB5twG2ImHLbe_BlC8mmM_HVDWKcxGfo6uPw6n_pPaLc1XXKft_MA_bo4_3k6K25-XF6dntwUDZcUiilTkshaGNvaqeDWEm6YY2aqFKUGKitACiGM5Lx2UNuaq6pt8p62hCnB2QH6trm7jOF27dJK9z41ruvM4HItLSkDLiuVwa9vwEVYxyF302SqKqFAQYbUBmpiSCm6Vi-j70281wT06F4v9KhYj4r16F6_uNd3Ofple39d986-BreyM3C4BUxqTNdGMzQ-vXKcUKB87HC84f75zt2_u4D-fj0bf-wZoaCe6w</recordid><startdate>200110</startdate><enddate>200110</enddate><creator>Kovacs, Michael J.</creator><creator>MacKinnon, Karen M.</creator><creator>Anderson, David</creator><creator>O'Rourke, Keith</creator><creator>Keeney, Michael</creator><creator>Kearon, Clive</creator><creator>Ginsberg, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Wells, Philip S.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200110</creationdate><title>A comparison of three rapid D‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism</title><author>Kovacs, Michael J. ; MacKinnon, Karen M. ; Anderson, David ; O'Rourke, Keith ; Keeney, Michael ; Kearon, Clive ; Ginsberg, Jeffrey ; Wells, Philip S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4720-938717b6adfd964dd14a3e3a98822a05d607666a744be0bdb485fc3a92f138643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Blood coagulation</topic><topic>deep vein thrombosis</topic><topic>diagnosis</topic><topic>d‐dimers</topic><topic>Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products - analysis</topic><topic>Hematology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>pulmonary embolism</topic><topic>Pulmonary Embolism - diagnosis</topic><topic>Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Venous Thrombosis - diagnosis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kovacs, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacKinnon, Karen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Rourke, Keith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keeney, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearon, Clive</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ginsberg, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wells, Philip S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of haematology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kovacs, Michael J.</au><au>MacKinnon, Karen M.</au><au>Anderson, David</au><au>O'Rourke, Keith</au><au>Keeney, Michael</au><au>Kearon, Clive</au><au>Ginsberg, Jeffrey</au><au>Wells, Philip S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of three rapid D‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism</atitle><jtitle>British journal of haematology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Haematol</addtitle><date>2001-10</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>115</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>140</spage><epage>144</epage><pages>140-144</pages><issn>0007-1048</issn><eissn>1365-2141</eissn><coden>BJHEAL</coden><abstract>We compared three rapid d‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Patients presenting to four teaching hospitals with the possible diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were investigated with a combination of clinical likelihood, d‐dimer (SimpliRED) and initial non‐invasive testing. Patients were assigned as being positive or negative for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism based on their three‐month outcome and initial test results. The three d‐dimer methods compared were: (a) Accuclot d‐dimer (b) IL‐Test d‐dimer (c) SimpliRED d‐dimer. Of 993 patients, 141 had objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. The sensitivity of SimpliRED, Accuclot and IL‐Test were 79, 90 and 87% respectively. All three d‐dimer tests gave similar negative predictive values. The SimpliRED d‐dimer was found to be less sensitive than the Accuclot or IL‐Test. When combined with pre‐test probability all three methods are probably acceptable for use in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><pmid>11722424</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03060.x</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0007-1048 |
| ispartof | British journal of haematology, 2001-10, Vol.115 (1), p.140-144 |
| issn | 0007-1048 1365-2141 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72304758 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Free Content; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Blood coagulation deep vein thrombosis diagnosis d‐dimers Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products - analysis Hematology Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Medical sciences Predictive Value of Tests Probability pulmonary embolism Pulmonary Embolism - diagnosis Reagent Kits, Diagnostic Risk Factors Sensitivity and Specificity Venous Thrombosis - diagnosis |
| title | A comparison of three rapid D‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T18%3A52%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20three%20rapid%20D%E2%80%90dimer%20methods%20for%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20venous%20thromboembolism&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20haematology&rft.au=Kovacs,%20Michael%20J.&rft.date=2001-10&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=140&rft.epage=144&rft.pages=140-144&rft.issn=0007-1048&rft.eissn=1365-2141&rft.coden=BJHEAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.03060.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72304758%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=198568080&rft_id=info:pmid/11722424&rfr_iscdi=true |