This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Vivek Sharma, FRCS; John Howes, FRCS Orth; Anders T. Cohen, FRACP
London, England

Arch Surg. 1997;132(2):212.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The results of the study by Flinn et al¹ reemphasize that the primary and secondary prevention of pulmonary embolism in a high-risk population may reduce adverse outcomes. We were impressed by the authors' 94% accuracy rate for venous duplex ultrasound scanning. This is not a common experience in the asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) population. Pooled data from studies using venography (the "gold standard") systematically show a 79% sensitivity using venous duplex ultrasound scanning for proximal DVT and a positive predictive value of 69%,² values that drop in patients with craniotomy to 38% and 56%, respectively.³ The authors' accuracy rate was derived from "an extended period of experience,"⁴ with no mention of the number of patients or the method of evaluation used, which leaves the readers to surmise its validity. When the authors quote "accuracy" rate, are they referring to the positive predictive value?

In the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?