Quality assessment study methodology, score obtained by each study on the checklist*
| Hugli, 2011, Switzerland | Righini, 2005, Switzerland | Hogg, 2005, UK | Wolf, 2008, USA | Kline, 2008, USA, NZ | Dachs, 2010, USA | Kline, 2004, USA† | Kline, 2010, USA | Penaloza, 2012, France | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Were the patients selected in an unbiased fashion (consecutive or random sampling)? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (2) Do they represent a spectrum of pretest probability the PERC is used for? | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0/1‡ | 1 | 1 |
| (3) Were the predictor variables assessed without knowledge of the outcome? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (4) Were the outcomes assessed without knowledge of the predictor variables? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (5) Were the outcomes defined accurately (especially PE)? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (6) Was follow-up adequate (<10% lost to follow-up)? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (7) Was there an explicit interpretation of PERC by clinicians in practice without knowledge of the outcome? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
*Yes=1, No=0.
†The study had two cohorts.
‡Scores represent the score for the low risk and very low risk cohort, respectively.
PE, pulmonary embolism; PERC, pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria.