ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2026
Thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thrombolysis is an adjunct therapy in the management of pulmonary embolism. Several different thrombolytic agents are available. A recent shortage of alteplase led us to consider the relative merits of different agents. Methods: We performed a systematic review of thrombolytic agents for pulmonary embolism. Studies comparing any thrombolytic agent with placebo, usual care or another thrombolytic agent were included. Both a standard pairwise analysis and a network meta-analyses (using a Bayesian framework) were performed. Results: 28 studies were identified. In the pairwise analysis, thrombolysis did not show any benefit in mortality when compared with placebo (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.1, 17 trials, 2220 participants) but it did cause an increase in serious bleeding events (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.94, 14 trials, 2028 participants). The network analysis did not show superiority of any one thrombolytic agent over any other or over placebo for the outcome of mortality. tenecteplase was associated with significantly more bleeding than placebo. Conclusion: No thrombolytic performs significantly better than placebo in pulmonary embolism. Thrombolytic agents, particularly tenecteplase, are associated with serious bleeding.
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.