This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • 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.

We read with interest the excellent article by Kruip and colleagues¹ regarding the use of D-dimer assays to distinguish between patients who may have pulmonary embolism from those who do not. In their investigation, plasma D-dimer concentration was measured with a quantitative rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent D-dimer assay (VIDAS DD; bioMérieux, Inc, Paris, France). The authors state that the sensitivity of the assay was 98% (95% confidence interval, 90%-100%) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 99% (95% confidence interval, 95%-100%).

This is in contrast to a recent article by Larsen and colleagues,² who assessed the reliability of the same D-dimer assay (Table 1). Using the discriminant values suggested by the manufacturer, the VIDAS kit has a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 42%, and an NPV of 85%. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear.

Table appears in full text version. Diagnostic Performance of VIDAS D-Dimer Assay at Different Cutoff Levels*

However, the article . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Use of a Clinical Decision Rule in Combination With D-Dimer Concentration in Diagnostic Workup of Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Prospective Management Study
Marieke J. H. A. Kruip, Marjan J. Slob, Joost H. E. M. Schijen, Cees van der Heul, and Harry R. Büller
Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(14):1631-1635.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT