Deep vein thrombosis: unstructured clinical assessment is not helpful in
diagnosis.
|
|
The study
Systematic review of all
of
- Patients: suspected deep vein
thrombosis
- Intervention: clinical assessment,
ultrasonography
compared with venography
- Outcome: diagnosis
Articles found in English
using MEDLINE, 1966 to April 1997
(search terms: thrombosis, physical examination, diagnostic tests,
sensitivity, specificity, phlebography
)
and bibliographic search
Selection criteria: as above
Appraisal criteria: graded methodologically (criteria
referenced)
Articles excluded if: none given
Five studies were identified.
There was no comment on heterogeneity.
The evidence
| diagnostic test |
DVT |
no DVT |
LR+ (95% CI) |
LR- (95% CI) |
| clinical assessment- O'Donnell et
al |
|
|
1.25
(1.00 to
1.50)
|
0.40
(0.17 to
0.96)
|
| clinical asessment- Haeger et
al |
|
|
1.40
(0.95 to
2.20)
|
0.64
(0.34 to
1.06)
|
| clinical assessment- Molley et
al |
|
|
2.10
(1.30 to
3.50)
|
0.55
(0.36 to
0.80)
|
| clinical assessment- Landefeld et
al |
|
|
1.20
(1.10 to
1.29)
|
0.21
(0.08 to
0.54)
|
| total |
|
|
- Clinical assessment included pain, tenderness, oedema,
Homan's sign, swelling and erthythema.
- The O'Donnell study involved 102 patients; Haegwe study 72;
Molley study 100; Landefeld study 354 (this was a retrospective
study).
Comments
- The clinical predition guides described have only been tested
where patients with previous VTE, suspected PE, current anticogulant therapy or
patients who were pregnant were excluded
- The clinical prediction guides need further alidation outside
their development centres
Citation
-
Anand
SS,
Wells
PS,
Hunt
D, et al:
Does this patient have deep vein
thrombosis?.
Journal of the American Medical
Association
1998;
279 (14):
1094-1099
Contributor: Chris Ball and Clare Wotton,
January 1999
Reviewer: Alex
Gallas
Clinical Question.
| Patient |
suspected deep vein thrombosis |
| Intervention or Exposure |
clinical assessment |
| Comparison |
venography |
| Outcome |
diagnosis |
|
|