ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2025
Pulmonary Embolism in Women in the Era of Expanding Advanced Therapies.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo examine sex-specific differences in pulmonary embolism management in the era of expanding advanced therapies. RECENT
findingsWomen with pulmonary embolism demonstrate unique risk profiles and clinical presentations compared to men. Recent advances in pulmonary embolism management, including Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams, catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy, and reduced-dose thrombolytics, have transformed treatment paradigms. In patients presenting with right ventricular dysfunction or hemodynamic instability, timely intervention and optimal treatment selection are crucial. Current literature, mostly retrospective, signals disparities in diagnostic testing, treatment approaches, and outcomes, despite women presenting with higher prognostic risk stratification. Important sex-based differences exist in risk factors, clinical presentations, diagnosis and management of pulmonary embolism. While contemporary device trials show balanced female representation, female-specific analyses remain limited. Prospective studies are needed to clarify treatment responses in women and establish evidence-based guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40658327What 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.