Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40658327›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2025

Pulmonary Embolism in Women in the Era of Expanding Advanced Therapies.

Ella Ishaaya, Katharine Yang, Jiyoung Seo, Janine Vintch, Jina Chung

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ella IshaayaDepartment of Medicine, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.
Katharine YangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W Carson St. Box 405, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA.
Jiyoung SeoDepartment of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Janine Vintch *Division of Respiratory Medicine and Critical Care Physiology and Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.
Jina Chung *Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W Carson St. Box 405, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA. jinachung@lundquist.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Pulmonary EmbolismThrombolytic TherapyFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSex FactorsThrombectomyFibrinolytic AgentsCatheter-based TherapyCatheter-directed ThrombolysisHealth EquityMechanical ThrombectomyPulmonary EmbolismSex-specific Differences

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.