ReviewObstetric medicine2016
The use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in pregnancy: Another successful case report, but are we actually making a difference?
Review in Obstetric medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute inferior vena cava thromboembolism in pregnancy.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- Inferior vena cava filters in pregnancy: Safe or sorry?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPregnant women with venous thromboembolism are traditionally managed with anticoagulation, but inferior vena cava filters are an alternative. We balanced risks and benefits of an inferior vena cava filter in a decision analysis.
methodsWe constructed a decision model to compare in pregnant women with VTE the outcome of (1) inferior vena cava filter and anticoagulant treatment versus (2) anticoagulant treatment only.
resultsAssuming a 63% risk reduction from an inferior vena cava filter (baseline mortality rate of venous thromboembolism of 0.5%), 318 women would need to be treated with inferior vena cava filters to prevent one venous thromboembolism related maternal death. Sensitivity analyses indicated that at a mortality rate of 0.5% the risk reduction from inferior vena cava filters needed to be 80%, while at a mortality rate of 2% a risk reduction of 20% would justify inferior vena cava filters.
conclusionsIn view of their potential morbidity, inferior vena cava filters should be restricted to pregnant woman at strongly increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism.
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.