Key result
Semiquantitative latex D-dimer fails to safely rule out pulmonary embolism with only ~87% sensitivity.
Why the study?
Diagnosing pulmonary embolism is difficult due to nonspecific symptoms and limitations of objective tests, necessitating evaluation of the D-dimer test using semiquantitative latex agglutination.
Does the D-dimer test with semiquantitative latex agglutination method accurately diagnose pulmonary embolism in patients with suspected PE?
Observational (n=185)
Does the D-dimer test with semiquantitative latex agglutination method accurately diagnose pulmonary embolism in patients with suspected PE?
The semiquantitative latex agglutination D-dimer test has insufficient sensitivity and negative predictive value to be used as a reliable screening tool for excluding pulmonary embolism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not exclude pulmonary embolism with this assay; leaves open validation of alternative D-dimer tests in prospective cohorts.
Kim et al. (2005) conducted an observational in Pulmonary embolism (n=185). D-dimer test with semiquantitative latex agglutination vs. Reference standard imaging (CT, V/Q scan, or angiogram) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) for pulmonary embolism. The semiquantitative latex agglutination D-dimer test demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.7% and specificity of 48.4% for pulmonary embolism, making it unsuitable as a screening test for exclusion.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: