FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 337:859-860 September 18, 1997 Number 12 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Meaney, J. F.M.

To the Editor: Meaney et al. (May 15 issue)¹ describe encouraging results with the use of magnetic resonance angiography to confirm the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. However, their inference that magnetic resonance angiography may provide a substitute for scintigraphy for noninvasive screening ignores the cost-effective scintigraphy-based algorithms in widespread use. Although the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) study has popularized the concern about a higher-than-optimal prevalence of scans indicating an intermediate probability of pulmonary embolism,² over half the patients still had scans indicating a low, very low, or high probability, which would typically indicate a therapeutic strategy. Combining . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.