MétaCan
← all works

Comparison of three diagnostic strategies for suspicion of pulmonary embolism: planar ventilation-perfusion scan (V/Q), CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and single photon emission CT ventilation-perfusion scan (SPECT V/Q): a protocol of a randomised controlled trial

2024· article· en· 7 citations· W4396978584 on OpenAlex· 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075712

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

The three-model screen

all 1,000 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Protocol for a randomized trial comparing imaging strategies for diagnosing pulmonary embolism; the strategies are clinical diagnostic methods, not research methods.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The protocol evaluates diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

RCT protocol comparing PE diagnostic imaging strategies; clinical diagnostic research.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a challenge to diagnose and when missed, exposes patients to potentially fatal recurrent events. Beyond CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and planar ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan, single photon emission CT (SPECT) V/Q emerged a new diagnostic modality of scintigraphic acquisition that has been reported to improve diagnostic performances. To date, no management outcome study or randomised trial evaluated an algorithm based on SPECT V/Q for PE diagnosis. We present the design of a randomised multicentre, international management study comparing SPECT V/Q with validated strategies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We will include a total of 3672 patients with suspected PE requiring chest imaging, randomised into three different groups, each using a different diagnostic strategy based on SPECT V/Q, CTPA and planar V/Q scan. Randomisation will be unbalanced (2:1:1), with twice as many patients in SPECT V/Q arm (n=1836) as in CTPA and planar V/Q arms (n=918 in each). Our primary objective will be to determine whether a diagnostic strategy based on SPECT V/Q is non-inferior to previously validated strategies in terms of diagnostic exclusion safety as assessed by the 3-month risk of thromboembolism in patients with a negative diagnostic workup. Secondary outcomes will be the proportion of patients diagnosed with PE in each arm, patients requiring additional tests, the incidence of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding and the incidence and cause of death in each arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is funded by a grant from Brest University Hospital and by INVENT. The study protocol was approved by Biomedical Research Ethics Committee. The investigator or delegate will obtain signed informed consent from all patients prior to inclusion in the trial. Our results will inform future clinical practice guidelines and solve the current discrepancy between nuclear medicine guidelines and clinical scientific society guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02983760.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

The record

Venue
BMJ Open
Topic
Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Field
Medicine
Canadian institutions
Ottawa Hospital
Funders
Keywords
MedicinePulmonary embolismPulmonary angiographyRadiologySingle-photon emission computed tomographyAngiographyNuclear medicineInternal medicine
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes