Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Iles, S.
Right arrow Articles by Town, G.I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iles, S.
Right arrow Articles by Town, G.I.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Q J Med 2003; 96: 211-215
© 2003 Association of Physicians

Clinical experience and pre-test probability scores in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

S. Iles, A.M. Hodges, J.R. Darley, C. Frampton1, M. Epton, L.E.L. Beckert and G.I. Town

From the Canterbury Respiratory Research Group and 1 Department of Medicine, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, New Zealand

Received 16 October 2002 Accepted for publication 9 December 2002.

Background: The Geneva and Wells pre-test probability scores are intended to replace empirical assessment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The effect of clinical experience on the inter-rater variability of these scores, and on empirical judgement, is unknown.

Aim: To determine whether medical staff appointment grade affects the inter-rater variability of these pre-test probability scores, or empirical assessment, in patients with suspected PE.

Design: Questionnaire survey.

Methods: Doctors were grouped by grade (mean number of years since graduation±SEM): house officers 0.7±0.2, registrars 6.3±0.6, consultants 25±4 and applied pre-test probability scores to actual case scenarios.

Results: The Geneva score was the most consistent method of determining pre-test probability and was unaffected by clinical experience (Geneva {kappa}=0.73, Wells {kappa}=0.38, empirical {kappa}=0.23, p<0.001 ). With empirical judgement, inter-rater variability was inversely proportional to clinical experience (house officers {kappa}=0.37, registrars {kappa}=0.24, consultants {kappa}= 0.16, p<0.05).

Discussion: The Geneva score was the least variable method and can be applied by junior or senior doctors. Using empirical judgement, junior doctors were more likely to agree on the pre-test probability of PE than were their more senior colleagues. This may imply that as physicians gain experience, they recognize that the diagnosis of PE can be difficult to assess and are reluctant to exclude it on clinical grounds.

Address correspondence to Dr S. Iles, Canterbury Respiratory Research Group, Hagley Hostel, Christchurch Hospital, Private Bag 4710, New Zealand. e-mail: stephen.iles{at}chmeds.ac.nz


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ChestHome page
M. Hlavac, J. Cook, R. Ojala, I. Town, and L. Beckert
Latex-Enhanced Immunoassay D-dimer and Blood Gases Can Exclude Pulmonary Embolism in Low-Risk Patients Presenting to an Acute Care Setting
Chest, October 1, 2005; 128(4): 2183 - 2189.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
QJMHome page
R. Sinharay
A cost-effective objective approach to aid diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)
QJM, September 1, 2003; 96(9): 687 - 688.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.