ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Optimizing the management strategy for inferior vena cava filter.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. 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.
- Inferior vena cava filter retrieval with radial jaw biopsy forceps: a case report.AME case reports · 2026Article
- Filter's retraction hook capture technique of pull-assisted method for endovascular retrieval of conical inferior vena cava filters whose hook attached to the wall.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Complications related to the inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) increase with prolonged dwell time. We therefore evaluated the efficacy of two new methods of monitoring patients in terms of retrieval rates, and compared them with our previous practice, which did not involve a multidisciplinary (MD) approach. Methods: From April 1st, 2012 to October 31st, 2019, patients were monitored by the vascular medicine department, without MD follow-up. From November 1 Results: The overall retrieval rate of IVCFs increased, though not significantly (P=0.15), from 40.5% with no specific follow-up (NSF), to 42.4% when a letter was sent to the GP, and to 49.7% when an MD meeting was implemented. In contrast, the adjusted retrieval rate improved significantly (P<0.001), rising from 62.9% with NSF, to 69.7% with a GP's letter, and reaching 97.5% following an MD meeting. Conclusions: MD involvement in patient follow-up leads to a significant improvement in the removal of IVCF that are no longer clinically necessary. Sending a letter to the GP is effective, but MD follow-up is more effective.
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.