SynthesisPloS one2018
Effects of thrombolysis on outcomes of patients with deep venous thrombosis: An updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early UK Experience with Aspiration Thrombectomy Followed by Urgent Surgical Decompression for Acute Venous Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.EJVES vascular forum · 2026Article
- Immunomodulation and Thrombolytic Approaches in the Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Outcomes From Mechanical Thrombectomy for Deep Vein Thrombosis: Insights From the PINC AI Healthcare Database.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
- Clinical Observation of Uninterrupted Thrombolytic Therapy via Indwelling Catheter for Lower Limb Deep Vein Thrombosis.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmall randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that thrombolysis, especially catheter-directed thrombolysis, can reduce the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). However, the recent ATTRACT trial did not demonstrate the same effects. Given this confusing situation, we performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effects of thrombolysis, especially catheter-directed thrombolysis, on the outcomes of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies comparing thrombolysis in combination with anticoagulation and with anticoagulation alone. The primary endpoint was PTS during the longest follow-up period. The safety endpoint was the incidence of major bleeding events. We also evaluated the outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis as a subgroup analysis.
resultsSix RCTs, including 1418 patients with DVT, were included in our meta-analysis. Thrombolysis in combination with anticoagulation did not reduce PTS (RR: 0.90, [0.80-1.01], P = 0.19) and increased major bleeding (RR: 2.07, [1.12-3.81], P = 0.02). However, trial sequential analysis (TSA) showed that more patients are needed to support the conclusion that thrombolysis in combination with anticoagulation increased major bleeding. Catheter-directed thrombolysis did not reduce the incidence of PTS (RR: 0.88, [0.68-1.13], P = 0.31) and did increase the incidence of major bleeding events (RR: 1.89, [1.00-3.59], P = 0.05).
conclusionThrombolysis, including catheter-directed thrombolysis, did not reduce the incidence of PTS and increased the incidence of major bleeding. However, the results were not supported by TSA and sensitivity analysis, so more relevant studies are needed.
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.