Table 4.

CT-scan versus physical examination

Gutiérrez de la Peña et al. [6]	Risk of bias	++++	4 × 4 Table
	Level of evidence	2B		PE +	PE −	Total
	Prevalence PE	18%	CT +	6	3	9
	Prevalence CT	17%	CT −	4	37	41
	Relative increase	0.92	Total	10	40	50
Baucom et al. [14]	Risk of bias	++	4 × 4 Table
	Level of evidence	2B		PE +	PE −	Total
	Prevalence PE	44%	CT +	76	23	99
	Prevalence CT	55%	CT −	4	78	82
	Relative increase	1.24	Total	80	101	181
Holihan et al. [23]	Risk of bias	++	4 × 4 Table
	Level of evidence	2B		PE +	PE −	Total
	Prevalence PE	30%	CT +	26	28	54
	Prevalence CT	54%	CT −	4	42	46
	Relative increase	1.80	Total	30	70	100
Goodenough et al. [5]	Risk of bias	??	4 × 4 Table
	Level of evidence	2B		PE +	PE −	Total
	Prevalence PE	18%	CT +	59	14	73
	Prevalence CT	17%	CT −	20	346	366
	Relative increase	0.92	Total	79	360	439
Caro-Tarrago et al. [11]	Risk of bias	+++	N = 160
	Level of evidence	2B
	Prevalence PE	14%
	Prevalence CT	20%
	Relative increase	1.45
Claes et al. [12]	Risk of bias	+++	N = 160
	Level of evidence	2B
	Prevalence PE	17%
	Prevalence CT	30%
	Relative increase	1.71

PE physical examination