We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Light reflection rheography as a noninvasive screening test for deep venous thrombosis.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 1992 May
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if light reflection rheography is a useful screening tool for the diagnosis of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis.
DESIGN: Light reflection rheography was compared with duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography on emergency patients being evaluated for proximal leg deep venous thrombosis.
SETTING: University hospital emergency department.
TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five ED patients being evaluated for acute leg deep venous thrombosis.
INTERVENTIONS: Seventy-five patients being evaluated for clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis had light reflection rheography performed on the involved extremity immediately before duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography. Duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography was the definitive diagnostic test.
MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Seventy-five patients had light reflection rheography performed, 72 had duplex ultrasonography, 19 had contrast venography, three had contrast venography alone, and 16 had both duplex ultrasonography and contrast venography. A comparison of light reflection rheography with duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography reveals that 39 light reflection rheography examinations were true-negative, 17 were true-positive, one was false-negative, and 18 were false-positive. The sensitivity of light reflection rheography for the detection of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis is 94.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.7-99.9%), the negative-predictive value is 97.5% (95% CI, 86.8-99.9%), the specificity is 68.4% (95% CI, 54.8-80.1%), and the positive-predictive value is 48.6% (95% CI, 31.4-66%).
CONCLUSION: Light reflection rheography proved to be an excellent screening tool for emergency patients with the clinical suspicion for an acute proximal leg deep venous thrombosis. A normal light reflection rheography examination was 97.5% accurate as a negative predictor. That is, a normal light reflection rheography excluded the diagnosis of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis when compared with duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography when the duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography showed no evidence of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis. An abnormal light reflection rheography does not equate to an acute leg deep venous thrombosis as the specificity was only 68.4%. An abnormal light reflection rheography mandates further diagnostic studies such as duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography to confirm a diagnosis of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis.
DESIGN: Light reflection rheography was compared with duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography on emergency patients being evaluated for proximal leg deep venous thrombosis.
SETTING: University hospital emergency department.
TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five ED patients being evaluated for acute leg deep venous thrombosis.
INTERVENTIONS: Seventy-five patients being evaluated for clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis had light reflection rheography performed on the involved extremity immediately before duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography. Duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography was the definitive diagnostic test.
MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Seventy-five patients had light reflection rheography performed, 72 had duplex ultrasonography, 19 had contrast venography, three had contrast venography alone, and 16 had both duplex ultrasonography and contrast venography. A comparison of light reflection rheography with duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography reveals that 39 light reflection rheography examinations were true-negative, 17 were true-positive, one was false-negative, and 18 were false-positive. The sensitivity of light reflection rheography for the detection of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis is 94.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.7-99.9%), the negative-predictive value is 97.5% (95% CI, 86.8-99.9%), the specificity is 68.4% (95% CI, 54.8-80.1%), and the positive-predictive value is 48.6% (95% CI, 31.4-66%).
CONCLUSION: Light reflection rheography proved to be an excellent screening tool for emergency patients with the clinical suspicion for an acute proximal leg deep venous thrombosis. A normal light reflection rheography examination was 97.5% accurate as a negative predictor. That is, a normal light reflection rheography excluded the diagnosis of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis when compared with duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography when the duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography showed no evidence of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis. An abnormal light reflection rheography does not equate to an acute leg deep venous thrombosis as the specificity was only 68.4%. An abnormal light reflection rheography mandates further diagnostic studies such as duplex ultrasonography and/or contrast venography to confirm a diagnosis of proximal leg deep venous thrombosis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app