ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2021
Safety, efficacy, length of stay and patient satisfaction with outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism patients - a meta-analysis.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A clinical decision framework to guide the outpatient treatment of emergency department patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis: Results from a multidisciplinary consensus panel.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnnual health expense of hospital admissions, due to venous thromboembolism including pulmonary embolism, exceeds 10 billion dollars in the United States. Most of these patients still get admitted to the hospital despite the advent of novel oral anticoagulants. Our aim is to show that low-risk pulmonary embolism patients can safely be discharged from the emergency department with similar patient satisfaction and lower length of stay.
methodsA comprehensive search in Medline indexed and non-indexed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was performed to search for all the randomized controlled trials that compared inpatient treatment of low-risk pulmonary embolism to outpatient treatment.
resultsOf 68 potentially relevant studies, a total of 2 studies (453 participants) met our inclusion criteria and had data available on patient satisfaction, length of stay, efficacy, and patient safety. The pooled estimate of the included studies showed that at 3-month follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between inpatient and outpatient treatment of these low-risk patients.
conclusionsIn conclusion, our meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials shows that low-risk pulmonary embolism patients can safely be discharged from the emergency departments in the limited studies available. We need more randomized controlled trials to confirm these findings.
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.