Why the study?
Are (125)I-labelled fibrinogen uptake and Doppler ultrasound more reliable than clinical findings for detecting deep vein thrombosis in high-risk obstetric patients?
Are (125)I-labelled fibrinogen uptake and Doppler ultrasound more reliable than clinical findings for detecting deep vein thrombosis in high-risk obstetric patients?
In high-risk obstetric patients, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis is low, but clinical findings are unreliable for detection compared to objective measures like (125)I-labelled fibrinogen uptake.
One hundred obstetric patients were studied for evidence of puerperal thromboembolic disease. Only one case of deep vein thrombosis was detected in patients thought to be in a "high risk" category because of age or operative intervention. Clinical findings were unreliable compared with measurements of (125)I-labelled fibrinogen uptake. Doppler ultrasound flow detection proved a simple screening technique but produced no abnormal findings in this series.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter K. Jackson (1973) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: