I access to noninvasive investigation and a declining tolerance for diagnostic uncertainty has resulted in increasing numbers of patients who are referred with suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE), all of whom require objective testing to confirm or exclude the diagnosis. Hence, the proportion of patients with suspected VTE in whom the diagnosis is confirmed has fallen progressively from 30 to 35% in the 1970s and 1980s,1–3 to around 15 to 25% in the last decade.4–6 Indeed, prevalences of 10% have been reported.7 This trend is not inappropriate for a potentially fatal disorder that can be effectively treated, but it has important resource implications. The potential value of plasma d-dimers (d-ds) as an exclusionary test for VTE in an era of increasing numbers of negative imaging test results has been appreciated for more than a decade. However, although outcome studies performed in the last 5 years have shown that a negative d-d test result can be used to minimize the need for serial ultrasound testing in patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT),8,9 and to reduce the need for additional imaging in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and nondiagnostic ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan results,10,11 their role as an exclusionary first-line test has been uncertain. The clinically useful d-d tests can be divided into two main groups that have important differences in performance characteristics. Rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) have very high sensitivity but low specificity, while modern latex agglutination tests tend to be somewhat less sensitive but more specific. More recently, highly sensitive latex agglutination tests have been developed, but they tend to have lower specificities so that their performance characteristics tend to resemble those of the ELISA assays. In the absence of an assay that is both highly sensitive and specific, two possible strategies for the initial use of d-d as an exclusionary tool are apparent. First, an assay chosen for high specificity could be used in combination with an additional factor such as low pretest probability (PTP), which identifies a subgroup with a low disease prevalence. This strategy is based on the concept that a test that had a sensitivity of, say, 90%, could not be used by itself to exclude VTE safely, but might be perfectly adequate when targeted to a subgroup of patients with a prior probability of, for example, only 5%. Second, an assay chosen for high sensitivity could be employed either as a stand-alone exclusionary test or in combination with an additional factor that identifies the major subgroup of patients in whom prevalence of VTE is not particularly high (ie, those with low or intermediate PTP). The proper evaluation of these approaches requires clinical outcome studies that will investigate the safety of withholding imaging and treatment in patients with suspected VTE on the basis of these strategies, together with an assessment of their exclusionary efficiency. Ideally, patients categorized as being “VTE-negative” should have a 3-month event rate similar to that observed in patients with suspected DVT who have normal venogram or serial *From the Department of Haematology, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Trust, London, UK. Received February 25, 2002; revision accepted May 29, 2003. Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians (e-mail: permissions@chestnet.org). Correspondence to: James Kelly, Department of Haematology, Fourth Floor, North Wing, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK SE1 7EH; e-mail: jameskelly@northbrookfm.fsnet.co.uk opinions/hypotheses