SynthesisDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2023
Inferior vena cava filter retrievals using advanced techniques: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ProTrieve Sheath funnel captures embolized filter fragments during complex inferior vena cava filter removal.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- Balloon-assisted radial release for retrieval of a surgically suture-fixed inferior vena cava filter: a case report.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Closed-loop protocol for inferior vena cava filter management significantly improves retrieval: a competing-risk analysis of a 10-year cohort.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Long-standing inferior vena cava filter with multidirectional strut penetration: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Failed Retrieval of an Inferior Vena Cava Filter.Cureus · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters after failed or anticipated technically challenging endovascular retrieval: a retrospective case series of 28 patients.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Facility-Level Variation Underlying Low Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval in the United States.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Article
- Single access 2-snare technique: A novel approach for challenging IVC filter retrieval.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- IVC Filters in Integrated Acute Pulmonary Embolism Management-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the safety of complex inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval techniques through a systematic review of published literature. Using PubMed, a systematic review was conducted in line with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to identify articles published through April 2020 that reported on complex IVC filter retrieval techniques in >5 patients. Case reports, review papers, and studies that did not report on primary outcomes or variables of interest were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale. Pooled success and complication rates were calculated for the overall number of complex retrieval attempts as well as for each filter type and each complex retrieval method. Sixteen fair-quality and three good-quality studies met the inclusion criteria, with 758 patients (428 female) who had undergone 770 advanced retrieval attempts. The mean age of the patients was 46.5 ± 7.1 years (range: 14.1-90), and the mean dwell time was 602.5 ± 388.6 days (range: 5-7336). Regarding filters, 92.6% (702/758) were retrievable and 7.4% (56/758) were permanent. Indications for complex retrieval included the failure of standard retrieval (89.2%; 676/758) and tilting or embedding in the caval wall (53.8%; 408/758); 92.6% (713/770) of the advanced retrieval attempts were successful. The pooled success rate was 92.0% (602/654) for retrievable filters and 96.4% (53/55) for permanent filters (
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.