Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2014
Prognosis of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in Buenos Aires: a prospective cohort study.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01372514 (Institutional Registry of Thromboembolic Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Institutional Registry of Thromboembolic Disease
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhospital mortality among clinical and surgical inpatients recently diagnosed with venous thromboembolic disease.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2015Trial
- Low Incidence of Symptomatic Thrombotic Events in Adult Patients Hospitalized with Coronavirus 19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolic disease between outpatient and inpatient management.Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognosis of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in whom PE has been ruled out (RPE) is unclear. We aimed to evaluate survival and diagnosis of new cancer in suspected PE patients at follow up.
methodsA prospective cohort study nested in a prospective Institutional Registry of Venous Thromboembolic Disease was performed between 2006 and 2011. This study was designed to evaluate all consecutive, incident cases of suspected PE in adults. The study was performed at the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, a tertiary level hospital, in hospitalized patients and outpatients. Suspected PE cases were collected using a computerized system that alerts whenever a physician requests pulmonary angiography, angiotomography, or ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy. PE was defined by pre-specified criteria and RPE was defined when diagnostic tests were negative for PE.
resultsWe included 1736 cases of suspected PE. The prevalence of PE was 29% (n = 504). There was no difference in the overall survival at 30 days and follow-up between PE and RPE patients. The presence of provoked or unprovoked venous thromboembolic disease in these patients did not affect survival. The main causes of death were PE in the confirmed PE group (60%), and neoplasm (42%) and sepsis (37%) in the RPE group. Survival at 90 days was 63% for PE (95% CI 58-67%) and 67% for RPE patients (95% CT 64-69%). At follow-up, there was no difference in diagnosis of new cancer between PE and RPE patients (2% vs 2%, p = 0.82), even when taking into account the unprovoked group.
conclusionsEven when the main cause of death in PE patients is PE itself, the overall mortality is similar between PE and RPE patients. The reason for this finding could be because of the more frequent and severe comorbidities in RPE than in PE patients.
trial registrationHomeClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01372514.
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.