This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

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

Using a very original study design, Goldstein et al¹ report on the impact of the introduction of a rapid D-dimer assay on resource utilization for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in their institution. They randomized 4 firms of their hospital into 2 groups. In the intervention group, house staff and attending physicians were instructed on the use of D-dimer assay to rule out PE and encouraged to use it. In the control group, physicians were simply informed of the study protocol and asked to investigate PE in the traditional manner. In sharp contrast to the results expected by Goldstein et al, that the use of the D-dimer assay would reduce the number of diagnostic tests for PE,^2-3 they observed a significant increase in the absolute number of patients investigated for suspected PE in the intervention group (304 of 2690 admitted patients [11.3%] vs 166 of 2700 patients [6.2%] in . . . [Full Text of this Article]