Accuracy or Outcome in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism

Sixteen years ago, the results of the Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) study¹ were published. That large-scale, multicenter trial definitively established the diagnostic characteristics of ventilation–perfusion scintigraphy of the lung, as compared with pulmonary angiography, for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. It was also the first trial to provide direct evidence that clinical assessment has a role beyond merely evoking pulmonary embolism as a diagnostic possibility and allows for the stratification of patients into three pretest categories of probability corresponding to an increasing prevalence of pulmonary embolism.As reported by Stein et al. in this issue of the . . .