Meta-Analysis: The Value of Clinical Assessment in the Diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis
Open Access
- 19 July 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 143 (2) , 129-139
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-2-200507190-00012
Abstract
Clinical assessment of suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) should be based on systematically evaluated evidence. To determine whether clinical findings, risk scores, and physicians' empirical judgments affect the likelihood of detecting DVT on definitive testing. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, ACP Journal Club, and citation lists (1966 to January 2005). Cohort studies published in English, French, Spanish, or Italian that compared clinical assessment with a reference standard. The authors extracted standardized data, including setting, exclusions, population characteristics, reference standard, and results, and assessed quality against validated criteria. The authors combined data by using random-effects meta-analysis and, if appropriate, used meta-regression to identify covariates that predicted diagnostic accuracy. Only malignancy (likelihood ratio [LR], 2.71), previous DVT (LR, 2.25), recent immobilization (LR, 1.98), difference in calf diameter (LR, 1.80), and recent surgery (LR, 1.76) were useful for ruling in DVT, while only absence of calf swelling (LR, 0.67) or difference in calf diameter (LR, 0.57) was useful for ruling out DVT. The Wells clinical score was more valuable than the individual characteristics; it stratified patients into groups with high (LR, 5.2), intermediate, and low (LR, 0.25) probability of DVT. The Wells score seemed able to stratify patients by risk only for proximal DVT, and it performed better in cohorts that were younger or excluded patients with previous thromboembolism. Pooled estimates were subject to substantial heterogeneity. This may limit extrapolation between observers and settings. Only published studies were included, so findings may be subject to publication bias. Individual clinical features are of limited value in diagnosing DVT. Overall assessment of clinical probability by using the Wells score is more useful.Keywords
This publication has 60 references indexed in Scilit:
- Diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and alternative diseases in symptomatic outpatientsEuropean Journal of Internal Medicine, 2004
- Evaluation of D-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Suspected Deep-Vein ThrombosisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2003
- Practical diagnostic management of patients with clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis by clinical probability test, compression ultrasonography, and D-dimer testThe American Journal of Medicine, 2002
- A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysisPublished by Elsevier ,2002
- Results of a New Rapid D-Dimer Assay (Cardiac D-Dimer) in the Diagnosis of Deep Vein ThrombosisThrombosis Research, 2001
- Rapid D-dimer testing and pre-test clinical probability in the exclusion of deep venous thrombosis in symptomatic outpatientsBlood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, 2001
- Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic TestsJAMA, 1999
- A Bayesian Approach to a General Regression Model for ROC CurvesMedical Decision Making, 1998
- Does This Patient Have Deep Vein Thrombosis?JAMA, 1998
- Accuracy of clinical assessment of deep-vein thrombosisThe Lancet, 1995