SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2023
Systemic thrombolysis with newer thrombolytics vs anticoagulation in acute intermediate risk pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation for intermediate-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Open heart · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of catheter-directed thrombolysis on the socio-economic burden of pulmonary embolism in Germany: a cost-effectiveness analysis.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of thrombolysis for pediatric venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood advances · 2025Pooled it
- Interventional Management of Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Current Evidence, Patient Selection and Personalised Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Prolonged Infusion Thrombolysis With rt-PA for Acute Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism.Pulmonary circulation · 2026Article
- Treatment with the EkoSonic™ Endovascular System (EKOSRespiratory research & clinical practice · 2026Article
- Rethinking Pulmonary Embolism Management with an Interventional Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Bleeding in patients hospitalized with acute pulmonary embolism in Brazil.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
- Perioperative Management and Outcomes after Endovascular Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients with Submassive (Intermediate-Risk) Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Chemical Adjustment of Fibrinolysis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Risk Stratification and Management of Intermediate-Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation: Unveiling the Trade-Offs in Massive Pulmonary Embolism.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic thrombolysis to anticoagulation in intermediate risk pulmonary embolism (PE) have yielded mixed results. A prior meta-analysis on this topic had included studies that used lower than standard dose of thrombolytics and included thrombolytic agents that are no longer available. Hence, interpreting the findings of that paper is not valid in contemporary practice.
objectivesWe undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of systemic thrombolysis with newer thrombolytic agents vs anticoagulation in intermediate risk PE.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.
resultsNine randomized controlled trials were included in the study. We did not find any difference in in-hospital mortality (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.42-1.50; I
conclusionIn our meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of systemic thrombolysis vs anticoagulation in intermediate risk PE, we did not find any difference in in-hospital mortality or overall risk of major bleeding. With systemic thrombolysis, we found lower risks for vasopressor use and need for secondary/ rescue thrombolysis and an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage.
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.