Key result
This practice review highlights that emergency clinicians must balance the benefits of ruling out pulmonary embolism with the risks of iatrogenic harms from over-investigation and overdiagnosis.
Why the study?
Emergency clinicians must balance the reassurance of negative PE testing against the harms of overinvestigation and overdiagnosis when evaluating varied respiratory or cardiovascular symptoms.
This practice review highlights the importance of balancing the benefits of ruling out pulmonary embolism with the risks of over-investigation and overdiagnosis in emergency settings.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports judicious PE testing in EDs; leaves open prospective validation of harm-minimizing strategies.
This first of two practice reviews addresses pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis considering important aspects of PE clinical presentation and comparing evidence-based PE testing strategies. A companion paper addresses the management of PE. Symptoms and signs of PE are varied, and emergency physicians frequently use testing to 'rule out' the diagnosis in people with respiratory or cardiovascular symptoms. The emergency clinician must balance the benefit of reassuring negative PE testing with the risks of iatrogenic harms from over investigation and overdiagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cafferkey et al. (2022) conducted a review in Pulmonary embolism. Clinical assessment and testing strategies was evaluated. This practice review highlights that emergency clinicians must balance the benefits of ruling out pulmonary embolism with the risks of iatrogenic harms from over-investigation and overdiagnosis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: