Responses

Download PDFPDF
A retrospective analysis of the combined use of PERC rule and Wells score to exclude pulmonary embolism in the Emergency Department
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Accurate diagnostic strategies for PE
    • Philip D Kaye, EM Consultant
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dominic Williamson

    The reported algorithm for diagnosis and exclusion of PE using Wells score < 2 plus negative d-dimer to indicate the patient does not require further imaging is a validated pathway. However, d-dimer specificity is low resulting in large numbers of patients who are low-risk for PE still requiring CTPA or a ventilation-perfusion scan. The aim of recent diagnostic studies, including this study reported by Theunissen JMG e...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.