Evidence Hub

Diagnostic Validation of PERC and Resource Utilization in Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liu X, Fan H, Hai Y, Wang J, Yu X, Lv Z, Gu S

Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 2026

13,672 participants

Abstract

Background and AimsPulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequent and potentially fatal diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC), an eight-item clinical decision rule used to identify patients at very low risk of pulmonary embolism, is widely applied to exclude PE in low-risk patients; however, its real-world diagnostic performance and impact on imaging utilization remain incompletely defined. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of PERC and its effect on reducing computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) use.Materials and MethodsThis review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for diagnostic test accuracy studies. Eligible studies enrolled ED patients with suspected PE who were classified as low risk according to the original study-specific approaches, including clinician gestalt, Wells score, revised Geneva score, or YEARS-based assessment. PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for eligible studies published between 2004 and 2025.ResultsTen studies involving 13,672 patients were included. The pooled PE prevalence was 7%. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of PERC were 95% (95% CI: 89%-98%), 26% (95% CI: 16%-40%), and 98.2% (95% CI: 97.8%-99.0%), respectively. PERC application was associated with a significant reduction in imaging utilization (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.80-0.91).ConclusionsPERC…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 13,672 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free