ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Rethinking Pulmonary Embolism Management with an Interventional Perspective.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. 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.
- Interventional Management of Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Current Evidence, Patient Selection and Personalised Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a major cardiovascular emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in risk stratification models, accurately predicting which intermediate-high-risk patients will deteriorate remains challenging. Systemic thrombolysis, while effective in high-risk PE, is not a viable option for a significant proportion of patients due to contraindications, and its efficacy in the intermediate-high-risk group remains inconclusive. Drawing parallels from acute myocardial infarction and stroke, where percutaneous interventions have revolutionized treatment, interventional therapies are emerging as a promising alternative for PE management. However, challenges persist regarding optimal patient selection, procedural timing, and balancing efficacy with safety. The establishment of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) has played a crucial role in streamlining decision-making and facilitating access to advanced therapies. As novel catheter-based techniques continue to evolve, the field of PE management is undergoing a paradigm shift, mirroring the transformation seen in acute coronary and cerebrovascular care, positioning interventional approaches at the forefront of therapy.
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.