CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2841 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

PERC no-testing rule-out strategy,
does it really help with Noninferior exclusion of three-month missed thromboembolism in very-low-risk emergency patients?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 72 · Safety caution
Strictly selected very-low-risk patients had noninferior three-month outcomes with less testing
PERC is not a self-screen for every patient with possible pulmonary embolism. It requires clinician assessment and all eight negative criteria; worsening chest pain, dyspnea, syncope, or other warning signs require prompt evaluation.
What the
research shows
The grade is B with 72 points. In the primary analyzable population, missed symptomatic thromboembolism occurred in 1/847 (0.1%) versus 0/902, an absolute difference of 0.1 percentage points with a one-sided 95% upper bound of 0.8%, within the prespecified 1.5% margin. This is conditional de-testing evidence, not evidence that D-dimer testing is harmful.
What the
ads claim
Direct use is limited to clinician-estimated PE probability below 15% plus all eight negative criteria: age under 50, pulse under 100, oxygen saturation at least 95%, no unilateral leg swelling, no hemoptysis, no recent trauma or surgery, no prior PE or DVT, and no exogenous estrogen.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • CT pulmonary angiography fell from 23% to 13%, an absolute 9.7-point reduction.
  • Median emergency stay was 36 minutes shorter: 4 h 36 min versus 5 h 14 min.
  • Admission fell from 16% to 13%, an absolute 3.3-point reduction.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2841 · B 72
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Fourteen French emergency departments underwent cluster-randomized crossover assignment to two six-month strategy sequences. In a cluster trial, concealment concerns hiding each emergency department's period sequence before recruitment and selection, not individual patient envelopes. A computer-generated block sequence was combined with a blinded numbered center list. Clinicians necessarily knew the strategy after a period began, while consecutive eligibility and blinded independent event adjudication reduced selection and outcome bias. Limitation: noninferiority design. Listed item: noninferiority design. Avoidability: impossible - the de-testing question asks whether omission stays within an acceptable safety margin. Substantial attrition (>=15%) was 60/1916 (3.1%), so it does not apply. The French Ministry of Health PHRC 2014 program funded the AP-HP-sponsored trial; author industry relationships were reported outside this work.

02

Why this is classified as B (72)

A hard three-month event, public independence, and a met prespecified margin are balanced against one RCT and noninferiority-design bias, giving B with 72 points.

Counterpoint. Do not extend this result to PERC-positive patients or clinician-estimated PE probability of 15% or more.

Rejudgment record. New verdict — Hard three-month event, public funding, met 1.5% margin, and cluster crossover noninferiority design

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Three-month de-testing safety in very-low-risk PERC-negative patientsBThe primary-analysis upper bound was 0.8%, within the 1.5% margin.
Reduced testing and emergency resource useBCT use, emergency stay, and admission decreased.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Cluster-randomized crossover noninferiority trial in 14 French emergency departments902French Ministry of Health PHRC 2014; AP-HP sponsorSymptomatic thromboembolic event within three months missed at the inclusion visit0.1% vs 0%; absolute difference 0.1 points, one-sided 95% upper bound 0.8%; margin 1.5%Pivotal hard-event noninferiority RCT
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Freund Y, Cachanado M, Aubry A, et al. Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients. JAMA. 2018;319:559-566. PMID: 29450523.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

PERC No-Testing Rule-Out Strategy for Three-Month Missed Thromboembolism in Very-Low-Risk Emergency Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism — Benefit Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] PERC No-Testing Rule-Out Strategy for Three-Month Missed Thromboembolism in Very-Low-Risk Emergency Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism — Benefit — Evidence Grade B·72. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/heart/perc-no-testing-very-low-risk-suspected-pulmonary-embolism/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.