MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of D-Dimer Measurement by a High Sensitivity Asay, as the First Step to Rule out a Venous Thromboembolism Suspected Episode, Independently of Pretest Clinical Probability.

2008· article· en· W2979733933 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F Casals, Davide Bernaudo, Jaume Villalta, Naila Lozano, Ginés Escolar

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineD-dimerPulmonary embolismDeep veinPre- and post-test probabilityVenous thrombosisThrombosisVenous thromboembolismRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Only 12 to 25% of patients suspected of clinical Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) are confirmed by an image study. This low efficiency in diagnosis adds a high cost to each VTE evidenced Academically it is recommended, before performing any test, to proceed to a clinical stratification between likely or unlikely VTE following explicit criteria. In this way the above prevalence is changed, increasing the test prediction power. However in general clinical practice, outside of clinical trials, these explicit rules are rarely employed. We have recently showed, by a management survey, that a normal D-Dimer value could reject with safety 22.34 % of suspicions of VTE, independently of the pretest clinical probability, whenever a high sensitivity assay (HSA) is used for D-Dimer measurement (VIDAS Exclusion, Bio-Merieux, France). So we have found, between December 2007 to May 2008, only one patient with Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and a normal D-Dimer value, from 410 normal D-Dimer detected, in 1835 orders realized (Patients in anticoagulant treatment were excluded). D-Dimer values were normal in 20.2 % of patients with a suspected DVT and in 23.5 % suspicions of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) (fractions (F) of 0.202 and 0.235 respectively). The systematically use of D-Dimer measurement, as first step in the diagnosis of VTE, could be expensive, with a vast cost in laboratory determination which could be superior to the cost in saving radiological explorations. To explore this problem we have computed the cost-benefit utility for this approach. There are internationally wide cost differences between explorations used to detect an episode of VTE: D-Dimer or Radiological exploration (CT, Ultrasounds, V/Q Lung Scan, Angiography). Therefore to compute the cost-benefit, we need to define a ratio (R=D/I) between the Hospital Service purveyor price of the D-Dimer assay (D) and imaging exploration cost (I) (If two different radiological exploration are indistinctly used, we use the sum of weighted cost for each exploration). If R is less than F the use of D-Dimer measurement to all VTE suspicions is worthwhile. These computed ratios (R) assuming only one exploration by patient, from our hospital are compared with another European hospital, two USA hospitals and another one from Canada, the results are showed in the table Ultrasounds V/Q Lung Scan CT D-Dimer Cost ($) R Cost ($) R Cost ($) R Cost ($) Barcelona (Spain) 161 0.052 203 0.041 407 0.021 8.4 Geneva (Switzerland) 90 0.366 301 0.109 600 0.055 33 USA # 1 95.19 0.103 309.06 0.032 - - 9.86 USA # 2 69 0.174 683 0.017 135 0.088 12 Montreal(Canada) 36 0.333 69 0.174 138 0.087 12 Therefore, as well in Barcelona as in the USA, the proposed strategy would be cost-benefit useful for DVT diagnosis, but not in Geneva or Monreal; however it is worthwhile to exclude PE in all hospitals studied. The saving magnitude in dollars, for each VTE detected, could be computed from the formula (FxI−D)/P; where P=VTE prevalence/100 (P=0.248 for DVT and P=0.129 for PE in our study), So, in our Hospital, the saving cost is 97.3$ for each DVT diagnosed and it is 304.7$ for each PE confirmed, if V/Q Lung Scan is used or it is 676.3$ if CT is employed. Old age and cancer are two conditions believed to have increased levels of D-Dimer. In our study, only patients over age 90 had a low probability (3.1 %) of normal values. On the other hand, a normal D-Dimer was evidenced in 138 out of 538 patients with cancer. Conclusion: D-Dimer determination by a HSA to all patients with suspicion of VTE, independent of a pretest clinical evaluation, could reject one out of every four or five patients, with safety for the patient and an important cost reduction in image explorations, provided that the cost ratio was inferior to the prevalence of normal D-Dimer existing in the tested population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→