SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2026
Thromboembolic risk in subcutaneous versus intravenous immunoglobulin therapy: a systematic review and narrative meta-synthesis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy is associated with thromboembolic complications, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), ischaemic stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). Subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) achieves lower peak serum IgG concentrations and may confer a reduced thromboembolic risk. We systematically reviewed the comparative thromboembolic safety of SCIg versus IVIg across neurological and immunological indications. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2024. Studies reporting thromboembolic events in patients receiving IVIg or SCIg for any indication were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Where feasible, pooled incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Thirty-four studies (approximately 12,800 patient-years of immunoglobulin exposure) were included. IVIg-treated patients (approximately 10,600 patient-years across 27 studies) experienced thromboembolic events at a pooled incidence of 1.8 per 100 patient-years (95% CI: 0.9-3.1). SCIg-treated patients (approximately 2,200 patient-years across 7 studies) had a pooled incidence of 0.14 per 100 patient-years (95% CI: 0.01-0.52). Only 3 thromboembolic events were documented in SCIg cohorts, all in patients with pre-existing prothrombotic risk factors. No head-to-head randomised trial comparing thromboembolic outcomes between routes exists. GRADE certainty was very low for the comparative estimate. Indirect evidence suggests that SCIg may be associated with a lower thromboembolic risk than IVIg, consistent with pharmacokinetic predictions. However, substantial differences in patient populations, follow-up duration, and event ascertainment between SCIg and IVIg cohorts preclude definitive conclusions. Prospective comparative trials with pre-specified thromboembolic endpoints are needed.
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.