Comparing Two Different Clinical Scoring Systems for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Thromboembolism

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorBerk, Serdar
dc.contributor.authorDogan, Omer Tamer
dc.contributor.authorOzsahin, Sefa Levent
dc.contributor.authorAkkurt, Ibrahim
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-26T18:05:27Z
dc.date.available2024-10-26T18:05:27Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.departmentSivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The most important stage while diagnosing the pulmonary thromboembolism is suspicion of the clinical findings, various clinical, radiological, laboratory investigations and clinical possibility methods that are used for diagnosing pulmonary thromboembolism. Two of these methods are the Wells and Geneva methods. The aim of this study is to compare the value of these two methods for diagnosing pulmonary thromboembolism. Material and Method: The study included 173 patients, 90 (52%) of whom were considered as having a pulmonary thromboembolism and were administered medical therapy, and 83 (48%) were not considered as pulmonary thromboembolism cases. Results: All the patients were evaluated according to the Wells and Geneva methods. In the patients considered as pulmonary thromboembolism cases according to the Wells method clinical possibility groups, the rates are calculated as 100%, 84%, and 1% in high, moderate and low risk groups respectively. According to the Geneva method clinical possibility groups, the rates are calculated as 72%, 53%, and 37% in high, moderate and low risk groups respectively. These two methods are statistically valuable (p<0.05) in making the diagnosis of pulmonary thromboembolism. The value of these two methods for diagnosing pulmonary thromboembolism, both clinical possibility scores and risk groups, are compared with the ROC curve. The area under the curve (AUC) for clinical possibility scores was calculated as 0.97 for Wells method and 0.60 for Geneva, and AUC for risk groups was calculated as 0.92 for Wells method and 0.60 for Geneva. Conclusion: In conclusion the Wells method calculation is more valuable for diagnosing pulmonary thromboembolism.
dc.identifier.endpage108
dc.identifier.issn1302-7808
dc.identifier.issn1308-5387
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.startpage104
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/29001
dc.identifier.volume9
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000421646800004
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.language.isotr
dc.publisherAves
dc.relation.ispartofTurkish Thoracic Journal
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectPulmonary thromboembolism
dc.subjectWells method
dc.subjectGeneva method
dc.titleComparing Two Different Clinical Scoring Systems for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Thromboembolism
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu