ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2015
Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Indications, Outcomes, and Evidence.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrievable inferior vena cava filter to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with fractures and deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities: a single-center experience.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- [Bedside implantation of a new temporary vena cava inferior filter : German results from the European ANGEL registry].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2018Observational
- Sentry Bioconvertible Inferior Vena Cava Filter: Study of Stages of Incorporation in an Experimental Ovine Model.International journal of vascular medicine · 2018Article
- Massive hemoptysis in a patient with pulmonary embolism, a real therapeutic conundrum.Respiratory medicine case reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementFilter technology seems relatively stable, although absorbable devices are an area of investigational interest. The indications for filter placement remain controversial, with wide variations in adherence to guidelines, and relatively poor quality of data about the specific prophylactic indications of trauma or bariatric surgery. The outcomes of filters are not well-defined despite widespread clinical use, and good data remains difficult to obtain. Several larger database and institutional retrospective studies support the notions that while filters prevent pulmonary embolism, they may be associated with venous thrombotic complications. Some subsets of cancer patients may be at increased risk of these complications, but whether the filter or the underlying hypercoagulable state is the cause is not clear. Lastly, although the benefits of filter retrieval are widely assumed (but not proven), filter retrieval rates remain lower than expected. The single most influential factor in improving filter retrieval rates is dedicated follow-up with intent to retrieve the filter.
Identifiers
26246444What 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.