ArticleCardiology research2013
Congenital Thrombophilia and Intracardiac Thrombosis: Probably an Underdiagnosed Event.
Article in Cardiology research, 2013. 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.
- Myocarditis complicated by massive right ventricular thrombus and extensive pulmonary embolism: A case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Prethrombotic, prothrombotic, thrombophilic states, hypercoagulable state, thrombophilia etc.: semantics should be respected even in medical papers.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the number of patients with congenital thrombophilia who presented an intracardiac thrombosis.
methodsPersonal files were reevaluated together with a time-unlimited search of the literature.
resultsTwenty-five patients with intracardiac thrombosis and congenital thrombophilia have been gathered from the literature including the two personal cases. The distribution observed in thrombophilia patients is similar for left side or right side heart (9 vs 11 cases). The left ventricle and the right ventricle were involved in six or five instances, respectively. In one case, both ventricles were involved. On the contrary, the left atrium was involved in three cases whereas the right atrium was affected in six cases. In the remaining cases, more than one heart chamber was involved.
conclusionsIn "normal" subjects, left side thromboses are predominant once catheter-associated thrombi are excluded. The reason of this discrepancy lies in the greater prothrombotic effect exercised by congenital thrombophilia on venous thrombosis compared to arterial thrombosis. The relative high prevalence of cardiac thrombosis seen in patients with antithrombin and protein C deficiencies indicated that a cardiac evaluation should be carried out in all patients with these two defects.
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.