ReviewClinics in chest medicine2018
Aggressive Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Patients with Acute Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism.
Review in Clinics in chest medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of Surgical Pulmonary Embolectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A 14-Year Single-Centre Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Acute pulmonary embolism in times of SARS-CoV-2: Diagnostic and therapeutic managementArchivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2021Article
- Pulmonary Embolism Prophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: An Emerging Issue.Heart, lung & circulation · 2021Review
- Thromboembolic Complications of SARS-CoV-2 and Metabolic Derangements: Suggestions from Clinical Practice Evidence to Causative Agents.Metabolites · 2021Review
- COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-Up: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Contemporary studies of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) have evaluated the role of thrombolytics in intermediate-risk PE. Significant findings are that thrombolytic therapy may prevent hemodynamic deterioration and all-cause mortality but increases major bleeding. Benefits and harms are finely balanced with no convincing net benefit from thrombolytic therapy among unselected patients. Among patients with intermediate risk PE, additional prognostic factors or subtle hemodynamic changes might alter the risk-benefit assessment in favor of thrombolytic therapy before obvious hemodynamic instability.
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.