Key result
Ultrasonic imaging replaces venography as the diagnostic standard for DVT.
Why the study?
Clinical diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis is unreliable and objective confirmation with appropriate diagnostic methods is necessary for treatment decisions.
What are the appropriate diagnostic methods for deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic and high-risk asymptomatic patients?
Population
Symptomatic patients suspected of DVT and asymptomatic patients at high risk for DVT
Comparison
Venography, ultrasonic imaging, plethysmography, Doppler flow studies, radioisotope tests, thermography, and peripheral blood tests
Design
Review of diagnostic procedures for DVT
Authors
Loading...
Clinical DVT diagnosis remains unreliable without objective testing; leaves comparative accuracy of ultrasound versus adjunct noninvasive methods open for prospective validation.
What are the appropriate diagnostic methods for deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic and high-risk asymptomatic patients?
Ultrasonic imaging has largely replaced venography as the standard for DVT diagnosis, though modality selection should be tailored to clinical and institutional factors.
Wheeler et al. (2009) conducted a review in Deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Diagnostic methods (ultrasonic imaging, venography, noninvasive tests) was evaluated. Ultrasonic imaging has replaced venography as the diagnostic standard for deep vein thrombosis in many hospitals, with noninvasive physiologic tests also useful depending on patient circumstances.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: