ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2023
Outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus systemic thrombolysis in the treatment of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative study of anticoagulation combined with different catheter-directed thrombolysis strategies (urokinase catheter-directed vs. alteplase infusion) in the treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Case Report: Thrombus aspiration andFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus systemic thrombolysis (ST) in the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE).
methodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched to collect the literature on the comparison of the results of CDT and ST in the treatment of PE from the beginning of their records to May 2020, and meta-analysis was performed by STATA software (version 15.1). Using standardized data-collection forms, the authors screened the studies and independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Cohort studies that examined the following results were included in the current study: in-hospital mortality, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, intracranial hemorrhage rate, the incidence of shock, and hospital length of stay.
resultsA total of eight articles, with 13,242 participants, involving 3962 participants in the CDT group and 9280 participants in the ST group were included. CDT compared with ST in the treatment of PE can significantly affect in-hospital mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56,
conclusionsCDT is a viable alternative to ST in the treatment of PE, as it can significantly reduce in-hospital mortality rate, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, and incidence of shock. However, CDT may prolong hospital length of stay to a certain extent. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CDT and ST in the treatment of acute PE and other clinical outcomes.
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.