1993JAMARequires access

Subselecting Patients at Risk for Pulmonary Embolism

David N. Mohr

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

To the Editor. —Several misconceptions may result from the recent report of pulmonary embolism in women and men in the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) study.1In this study, risk factors were compared for men and women suspected of having pulmonary embolism. It is valid to compare the presence of risk factors in men and women who have the disease (eg, positive angiogram). However, when one compares these risk factors for those suspected of a disease, the results are biased by the physician's threshold for suspicion of disease, which includes the risk factors under study. The comparison of the frequency of a risk factor in men and women with definite pulmonary embolism with those suspected of pulmonary embolism but with a negative angiogram is invalid owing to selection bias. The authors acknowledge the problem of a biased denominator and concede that suspicion of pulmonary embolism and, hence,

About this research paper

What this paper is about

To the Editor. —Several misconceptions may result from the recent report of pulmonary embolism in women and men in the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) study.1In this study, risk factors were compared for men and women suspected of having pulmonary embolism. It is valid to compare the presence of risk factors in men and women who have the disease (eg, positive angiogram). However, when one compares these risk factors for those suspected of a disease, the results are biased by the physician's threshold for suspicion of disease, which includes the risk factors under study. The comparison of the frequency of a risk factor in men and women with definite pulmonary embolism with those suspected of pulmonary embolism but with a negative angiogram is invalid owing to selection bias. The authors acknowledge the problem of a biased denominator and concede that suspicion of pulmonary embolism and, hence,

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

To the Editor. —Several misconceptions may result from the recent report of pulmonary embolism in women and men in the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) study.1In this study, risk factors were compared for men and women suspected of having pulmonary embolism. It is valid to compare the presence of risk factors in men and women who have the disease (eg, positive angiogram). However, when one compares these risk factors for those suspected of a disease, the results are biased by the physician's threshold for suspicion of disease, which includes the risk factors under study. The comparison of the frequency of a risk factor in men and women with definite pulmonary embolism with those suspected of pulmonary embolism but with a negative angiogram is invalid owing to selection bias. The authors acknowledge the problem of a biased denominator and concede that suspicion of pulmonary embolism and, hence,

Key concepts: Medicine, Pulmonary embolism, Embolism, Radiology, Risk factor, Disease, Cardiology, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Subselecting Patients at Risk for Pulmonary Embolism — Research Paper | ScholarLens