Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 191

1.

Comparison of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism.

Klok FA, Kruisman E, Spaan J, Nijkeuter M, Righini M, Aujesky D, Roy PM, Perrier A, Le Gal G, Huisman MV.

J Thromb Haemost. 2008 Jan;6(1):40-4. Epub 2007 Oct 29.

2.

Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism.

Klok FA, Mos IC, Nijkeuter M, Righini M, Perrier A, Le Gal G, Huisman MV.

Arch Intern Med. 2008 Oct 27;168(19):2131-6. doi: 10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131.

PMID:
18955643
3.

Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

Chagnon I, Bounameaux H, Aujesky D, Roy PM, Gourdier AL, Cornuz J, Perneger T, Perrier A.

Am J Med. 2002 Sep;113(4):269-75.

PMID:
12361811
4.

Comparison of Wells and Revised Geneva Rule to Assess Pretest Probability of Pulmonary Embolism in High-Risk Hospitalized Elderly Adults.

Di Marca S, Cilia C, Campagna A, D'Arrigo G, Abd ElHafeez S, Tripepi G, Puccia G, Pisano M, Mastrosimone G, Terranova V, Cardella A, Buonacera A, Stancanelli B, Zoccali C, Malatino L.

J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Jun;63(6):1091-7. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13459. Epub 2015 Jun 1.

PMID:
26032745
5.

Comparison of the Wells and Revised Geneva Scores for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: an Australian experience.

Wong DD, Ramaseshan G, Mendelson RM.

Intern Med J. 2011 Mar;41(3):258-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02204.x.

PMID:
20214691
6.

Performance of the Wells and Revised Geneva scores for predicting pulmonary embolism.

Calisir C, Yavas US, Ozkan IR, Alatas F, Cevik A, Ergun N, Sahin F.

Eur J Emerg Med. 2009 Feb;16(1):49-52. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328304ae6d.

PMID:
18931619
7.

Prevalence of venous thromboembolic events and diagnostic performance of the wells score and revised geneva scores for pulmonary embolism in patients with interstitial lung disease: a prospective study.

Luo Q, Xie J, Han Q, Tang C, Chen X, Wu L, Chen R.

Heart Lung Circ. 2014 Aug;23(8):778-85. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2014.02.014. Epub 2014 Mar 12.

PMID:
24685075
8.

Comparison of the Wells score with the simplified revised Geneva score for assessing pretest probability of pulmonary embolism.

Penaloza A, Melot C, Motte S.

Thromb Res. 2011 Feb;127(2):81-4. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2010.10.026. Epub 2010 Nov 20.

PMID:
21094985
9.

Values of the Wells and revised Geneva scores combined with D-dimer in diagnosing elderly pulmonary embolism patients.

Guo DJ, Zhao C, Zou YD, Huang XH, Hu JM, Guo L.

Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Apr 20;128(8):1052-7. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.155085.

10.

Validity and clinical utility of the simplified Wells rule for assessing clinical probability for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism.

Douma RA, Gibson NS, Gerdes VE, Büller HR, Wells PS, Perrier A, Le Gal G.

Thromb Haemost. 2009 Jan;101(1):197-200.

PMID:
19132208
11.

[Comparison of three clinical prediction rules among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism].

Ulukavak Ciftçi T, Köktürk N, Demir N, Oğuzülgen KI, Ekim N.

Tuberk Toraks. 2005;53(3):252-8. Turkish.

PMID:
16258884
12.
13.

Comparison of the unstructured clinician gestalt, the wells score, and the revised Geneva score to estimate pretest probability for suspected pulmonary embolism.

Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Meyer G, Quentin-Georget S, Soulie C, Thys F, Roy PM.

Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Aug;62(2):117-124.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.11.002. Epub 2013 Feb 21.

PMID:
23433653
14.

Performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (the PERC rule) combined with low clinical probability in high prevalence population.

Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Dambrine S, Zech F, Thys F, Roy PM.

Thromb Res. 2012 May;129(5):e189-93. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2012.02.016. Epub 2012 Mar 15.

PMID:
22424852
15.

Outcomes of high pretest probability patients undergoing d-dimer testing for pulmonary embolism: a pilot study.

Kabrhel C.

J Emerg Med. 2008 Nov;35(4):373-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.08.070. Epub 2008 Mar 17.

PMID:
18343077
16.

VIDAS D-dimer in combination with clinical pre-test probability to rule out pulmonary embolism. A systematic review of management outcome studies.

Carrier M, Righini M, Djurabi RK, Huisman MV, Perrier A, Wells PS, Rodger M, Wuillemin WA, Le Gal G.

Thromb Haemost. 2009 May;101(5):886-92. Review.

PMID:
19404542
17.

Performance of 4 clinical decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort study.

Douma RA, Mos IC, Erkens PM, Nizet TA, Durian MF, Hovens MM, van Houten AA, Hofstee HM, Klok FA, ten Cate H, Ullmann EF, Büller HR, Kamphuisen PW, Huisman MV; Prometheus Study Group.

Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jun 7;154(11):709-18. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00002.

PMID:
21646554
18.

The combination of four different clinical decision rules and an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off increases the number of patients in whom acute pulmonary embolism can safely be excluded.

van Es J, Mos I, Douma R, Erkens P, Durian M, Nizet T, van Houten A, Hofstee H, ten Cate H, Ullmann E, Büller H, Huisman M, Kamphuisen PW.

Thromb Haemost. 2012 Jan;107(1):167-71. doi: 10.1160/TH11-08-0587. Epub 2011 Nov 10.

PMID:
22072293
19.

Clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ceriani E, Combescure C, Le Gal G, Nendaz M, Perneger T, Bounameaux H, Perrier A, Righini M.

J Thromb Haemost. 2010 May;8(5):957-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03801.x. Epub 2010 Feb 2. Review.

20.

Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer.

Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, Ginsberg JS, Kearon C, Gent M, Turpie AG, Bormanis J, Weitz J, Chamberlain M, Bowie D, Barnes D, Hirsh J.

Thromb Haemost. 2000 Mar;83(3):416-20.

PMID:
10744147

Supplemental Content

Support Center