ArticleBMJ case reports2013
Thrombolysis in submassive pulmonary embolism, prudent or puerile?
Article in BMJ case reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains one of the leading causes of cardiovascular mortality. The safety and efficacy of thrombolytic therapy using tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute PE in clinical practice remain unclear. We describe a case of life-threatening submassive PE causing extreme refractory hypoxaemia, where thrombolysis was successfully administered. Current consensus suggests that patients with features of hemodynamic instability as a result of an acute PE, that is, massive PE, should receive thrombolysis. Patients, not in shock however, but with evidence of right-ventricular (RV) dysfunction echocardiographically, that is, submassive PE may also benefit. Serum troponin and brain-type natriuretic peptide have been suggested as biomarkers of RV injury that may identify a subset of submassive PE patients who may particularly benefit from thrombolytic therapy. The clinical response of this patient to thrombolysis is important, as it may identify a subgroup of patients with submassive PE who warrant this intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.