ReviewThe Journal of cardiovascular surgery2026
Risk stratification in pulmonary embolism: current evidence and future directions.
Review in The Journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Timely diagnosis and accurate prognostication are extremely important for guiding patient management and treatment selection. Risk stratification and clinical scoring systems are crucial for rapid assessment, effective triage, and accurate outcome prediction. Traditional tools have demonstrated strong prognostic value, and the role of dynamic risk assessment is increasingly recognized. Pretest probability scores including the Wells clinical prediction rule and the revised Geneva score, act as first line assessments to determine the need for further diagnostic testing. The Hestia criteria, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) help to identify patients appropriate for outpatient management. For hospitalized patients, several additional scoring systems, imaging findings, and biomarkers can be used for further risk stratification and treatment planning. The development of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) and the integration of hybrid predictive models are demonstrating a shift toward a multimodal approach to PE risk stratification. The objective of this review is to summarize current approaches to risk assessment in pulmonary embolism, evaluate existing and emerging prediction models, as well as discuss future directions aimed at improving individualized care in the management and treatment of pulmonary embolism.
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.