Catheter Interventions for Pulmonary Embolism: Are They Really that Safe?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. [Ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis. Initial experience in patients with contraindications to systemic thrombolysis].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023
   Review
2. Catheter-directed interventions compared with systemic thrombolysis achieve improved ventricular function recovery at a potentially lower complication rate for acute pulmonary embolism.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2018
   Article
3. Predictors of failure and complications of catheter-directed interventions for pulmonary embolism.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2017
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Treatment of Massive or Submassive Acute Pulmonary Embolism With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis.2016

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as