SynthesisEuropean journal of haematology2022
Idiopathic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: A systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of haematology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Idiopathic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: A systematic review.European journal of haematology · 2022Pooled it
- Etiology and outcomes of upper extremity venous thrombosis: a retrospective cohort study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: An intensivist's perspective.World journal of critical care medicine · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdiopathic upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) management is controversial and ranges from anticoagulation alone to the addition of further interventions such as thrombolysis and decompressive surgery.
objectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of anticoagulation alone compared to anticoagulation with additional interventions such as thrombolysis or decompressive surgery on the incidence of recurrent UEDVT and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with idiopathic UEDVT (including those associated with the oral contraceptive pill). PATIENTS/
methodsA systematic search was conducted for studies which focused on acute UEDVT treatment defined as therapies starting within 4 weeks of symptom onset. We limited studies to those that recruited 10 or more subjects and involved at least 6 weeks to 12 months anticoagulation alone or together with additional interventions with at least 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were symptomatic recurrent radiologically confirmed UEDVT and PTS. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding and mortality.
resultsWe found seven studies which reported recurrent UEDVT rates and five that reported PTS rates. All studies were retrospective or cross-sectional. None compared anticoagulation alone to anticoagulation with additional intervention. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and risk of bias was moderate to serious. Recurrent UEDVT occurred in 0% to 12% post-anticoagulation alone and 0% to 23% post-additional interventions. PTS rates varied from 4% to 32% without severe PTS. Only limited studies reported on our secondary outcomes.
conclusionThere is limited evidence behind idiopathic UEDVT management. Prospective comparative studies in this area are essential.
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.