Why the study?
Does the Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) accurately rule out pulmonary embolism in clinically low probability population settings?
Does the Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) accurately rule out pulmonary embolism in clinically low probability population settings?
The PERC rule can be confidently used to rule out pulmonary embolism in patients with a low clinical probability.
Supports safe PE rule-out without imaging in low-probability patients; confirms PERC performance across pooled diagnostic studies.
Because of the high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio, PERC rule can be used confidently in clinically low probability population settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: