Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26733562›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

The efficacy and safety of complete pericardial drainage by means of intrapericardial fibrinolysis for the prevention of complications of pericardial effusion: a systematic review protocol.

Aloysious Kakia, Charles S Wiysonge, Eleanor A Ochodo, Abolade A Awotedu, Arsen D Ristic, Bongani M Mayosi

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Aloysious KakiaDepartment of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha, South Africa.
Charles S WiysongeCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
Eleanor A OchodoCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Abolade A AwoteduDepartment of Medicine, Nelson Mandela Academic Hospital and Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha, South Africa.
Arsen D RisticDepartment of Cardiology, Clinical Center of Serbia and Belgrade University School of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.
Bongani M MayosiDepartment of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital and University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Walter Sisulu University · ZAGroote Schuur Hospital · ZASouth African Medical Research Council · ZAStellenbosch University · ZAUniversity of Belgrade · RS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntrapericardial fibrinolysis has been proposed as a means of preventing complications of pericardial effusion such as cardiac tamponade, persistent and recurrent pericardial effusion, and pericardial constriction. There is a need to understand the efficacy and safety of this procedure because it shows promise. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to assess the effects of intrapericardial fibrinolysis in the treatment of pericardial effusion. We will search PubMed, the Cochrane Library, African Journals online, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Trip database, Clinical trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies that evaluate the efficacy and/or safety of complete pericardial fluid drainage by intrapericardial fibrinolysis irrespective of study design, geographical location, language, age of participants, aetiology of pericarditis or types of fibrinolytics. Two authors will do the search independently, screen the search outputs for potentially eligible studies and assess whether the studies meet the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies between the two authors will be resolved through discussion and arbitration by a third author. Data from the selected studies shall be extracted using a standardised data collection form which will be piloted before use. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tools for assessing risk of bias for experimental studies and non-randomised studies, respectively. The primary meta-analysis will use random effects models due to expected interstudy heterogeneity. Dichotomous data will be analysed using relative risk and continuous with data mean differences, both with 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval by an ethics committee is not required for this study as it is a protocol for a systematic review of published studies. The results will be disseminated through a conference presentation and peer-reviewed publication. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO, CRD42014015238.

Indexed as

FibrinolysisThrombolytic TherapyDrainageFibrinolytic AgentsHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPericardial EffusionPericardiumResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicFibrinolytic AgentsPREVENTIVE MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID26733562
PMCPMC4716243
OpenAlexW2227154313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.