Table 4.

Summary of Systematic Reviews of the Accuracy of Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism

Author, Year	Main Inclusion Criteria	No. of Patients	Prevalence of Pulmonary Embolism %	Pooled Sensitivity % (Range)or [95% CI]	Pooled Specificity % (Range)or [95% CI]
CI = confidence interval; PA = pulmonary arteriography; CT = computed tomography; PE = pulmonary embolism; NR = not reported; V/Q = ventilation-perfusion.
* Results include only patients in whom pulmonary angiography was used as reference standard.
† Positive likelihood ratio.
‡ Negative likelihood ratio.
Harvey et al,⁶⁰ 2000	Prospective and retrospective studies with PA as reference standard in most cases	813	34	79 (47–100)	89 (75–100)
Mullins et al,⁶¹ 2000	Diagnosis established by PA or a clinical reference standard*	367	35	93 (50–100)	97 (92–100)
Rathbun et al,⁶² 2000	Prospective studies evaluating use of CT for diagnosis of PE using any reference Standard	1,330	NR	(53–100)	(81–100)
Cueto et al,⁶³ 2001	Prospective studies with positive and negative CT results; PA reference standard	268	NR	80 [73–86]	94 [91–98]
van Beek et al, ⁶⁴ 2001	Prospective studies reporting sensitivity and specificity of CT relative to PA or V/Q scan	1,171	39	88 [83–91]	92 [89–94]
Safriel & Zinn,⁶⁵ 2002	Diagnosis established by PA or high- probability V/Q scan	1,250	NR	74 [57–100]	90 [68–100]
Roy et al,⁶⁶ 2005	Prospective studies;	431	NR	24 (12–47)^†
	consecutive patients; diagnosis established by PA for confirmation strategies, and PA or clinical follow-up for exclusion strategies	1,197	NR		0.11 (0.06–0.19)^‡
Hayashino et al,⁶⁷ 2005	Studies of helical CT compared to PA obtained within 48 hr	520	NR	86 (80–92)	94 (91–96)
Hogg et al,⁶⁸ 2006	Prospective studies with 85% follow-up, with adequate reference standard, or clinical follow-up after negative CT	749	19–79	89 (82–95)	95 (91–98)