ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2020
Inferior vena cava filters: a framework for evidence-based use.
Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes in venous thromboembolism with retained vs removed inferior vena cava filters: an analysis from the Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad TromboEmbólica.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Identifying and addressing underuse in hematologic care through systems-based hematology.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Trends and Predictors of Vena Cava Filter Use (2004-2023): A Swiss Nationwide Epidemiological Study.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Protrieve sheath utilization for capturing supra-filter thrombus during a retrieval of thrombosed and embedded IVC filter.CVIR endovascular · 2023Article
- The bridging conundrum: perioperative management of direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2023Review
- Improving the rate of inferior vena cava filter retrieval through multidisciplinary engagement.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- What happens after they survive? The role of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in IVC injuries.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2022Article
- Perioperative consultative hematology: can you clear my patient for a procedure?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Although most patients can be managed safely with anticoagulation, inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) represent an important alternative to anticoagulation in a small subset of patients. IVCF use has expanded exponentially with the advent of retrievable filters. Indications for IVCFs have liberalized despite limited evidence supporting this practice. Because indiscriminate use of IVCFs can be associated with net patient harm, knowledge of the risks and benefits of these devices is essential to optimal evidence-based practice. Patients with acute VTE and absolute contraindications to anticoagulation or major complications from anticoagulation are universally agreed indications for IVCFs. However, the reliance on IVCFs for primary VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients is not substantiated by the available literature. This review examines trends in IVCF use, practice-based recommendations on IVCF use in various clinical scenarios, complications associated with indwelling IVCFs, and indications for IVCF retrieval.
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.