AI-powered clinical summaries delivered to your inbox 3 times per week. Evidence-based insights in 300 words, designed for busy physicians.
Jump straight to the top-ranked recent papers in your field — scored by AI on validity, patient-oriented outcomes, and clinical impact, updated monthly.
Subscribers receive email summaries and access to our interactive AI-powered article rankings.
A negative PERC-Peds rule safely ruled out pulmonary embolism in selected emergency-department children.
*Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort; Level 2 (OCEBM).
Ellison AM, Kuppermann N, Shihabuddin BS, et al. PERC-Peds rule for bedside exclusion of pulmonary embolism without radiation in children in the USA (BEEPER). Lancet Respir Med. 2026;14:694-703.
Children with possible pulmonary embolism often undergo blood testing or imaging despite limited pediatric evidence. Imaging can expose children to radiation and contrast risks, so a safe bedside rule could reduce low-value testing.
Children aged 4-17 years in 21 U.S. pediatric emergency departments when clinicians ordered or strongly considered testing for pulmonary embolism. Exclusions included known pregnancy, current anticoagulant use for clot disease, intoxication, incarceration, or inability to complete follow-up.
Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria in Children, assessed at the bedside.
Final adjudicated diagnosis using imaging reports, records, and follow-up.
Any pulmonary embolism or large deep vein clot within 45 days.
45 days; 90 days for children diagnosed with clots.
| Finding | Result |
|---|---|
| Clot prevalence | 6.3% (95% CI 5.6 to 7.2) |
| PERC-Peds sensitivity | 99.6% (95% CI 97.8 to 100.0) |
| PERC-Peds specificity | 19.6% (95% CI 18.4 to 20.9) |
| False-negative rate | 0.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 0.8) |
| PERC-Peds then D-dimer | Ruled out 54.3%; false-negative rate 0.9% (95% CI 0.6 to 1.4) |
PERC-Peds: Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria in Children. D-dimer: blood test for clot breakdown.
The primary analysis used adjudicated children with complete rule data. This was not a management trial.
Low specificity means many children still tested positive by the rule. Results came from academic pediatric emergency departments and may not generalize. Agreement between clinicians was only modest, especially for clinical judgment. Possible indication creep: the evidence comes from children already considered at risk, not all children with chest pain or shortness of breath.
U.S. National Institutes of Health; no funder role reported.
Use PERC-Peds only in selected emergency children with suspected pulmonary embolism to avoid unnecessary testing when all criteria are negative.
Create your account in seconds using your Google account. No passwords to remember.
Get AI-curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox three times per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).
Our interactive article rankings allow you to find the best articles, tailored to you.