Chest ACCP Career Connection
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kabrhel, C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldhaber, S. Z.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kabrhel, C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldhaber, S. Z.
(Chest. 2005;127:1627-1630.)
© 2005 American College of Chest Physicians

Clinical Gestalt and the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism*

Does Experience Matter?

Christopher Kabrhel, MD; Carlos A. Camargo, Jr, MD, DrPH, FCCP and Samuel Z. Goldhaber, MD, FCCP

* From the Department of Emergency Medicine (Drs. Kabrhel and Camargo), Massachusetts General Hospital; and Cardiovascular Division (Dr. Goldhaber), Department of Medicine, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Correspondence to: Christopher Kabrhel, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Clinics Building 115, Boston, MA 02114; e-mail: ckabrhel{at}partners.org

Study objectives: We sought to determine whether the accuracy of pretest assessment of the likelihood of pulmonary embolism (PE) was related to physician experience. We compared the accuracy of the subjective pretest probability assessment made by senior physicians (postgraduate year [PGY]-4+) to that of interns (PGY-1) and residents (PGY-2 and PGY-3) working in the emergency department of a large teaching hospital.

Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Urban, academic emergency department with an annual census of 48,000 patient visits.

Patients: Five hundred eighty-three adults evaluated for PE in the emergency department.

Interventions: Eligible patients had at least one diagnostic test ordered to workup PE. The physician treating the patient was asked whether he or she considered PE the most-likely diagnosis or whether an alternative diagnosis was most likely. This result was compared to the ultimate diagnosis. Physician experience was categorized by the number of years of training since medical school graduation.

Measurements and results: There was a trend toward increasing accuracy with increasing experience, demonstrated by the frequency of true-positive assessments (17% vs 20% vs 25%), true-negative assessments (89% vs 94% vs 96%), and likelihood ratio (1.49 vs 2.34 vs 3.33), respectively.

Conclusions: Accurate determination of the pretest probability of PE appears to increase with clinical experience. However, the difference in accuracy between inexperienced and experienced physicians is not sufficiently large to distinguish between the two when determining whether clinical gestalt or a clinical prediction rule should be used to determine the pretest probability of PE.

Key Words: clinical gestalt • clinical prediction rule • education • pretest probability assessment • pulmonary embolism






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Chest Physicians.