ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Robustness and fragility of evidence supporting systemic thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systemic thrombolysis is recommended for high-risk PE and select intermediate-risk patients. We assessed the robustness of RCT evidence comparing systemic thrombolytic therapy with standard anticoagulation. We systematically reviewed RCTs of intravenously administered alteplase or tenecteplase versus heparin. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included recurrent PE, clinical deterioration in intermediate-risk patients, and major bleeding. Fragility index (FI) or reverse FI (RFI) and fragility quotient (FQ) or reverse FQ (RFQ) were calculated to assess outcome stability. Absolute and relative risk reductions, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm (NNH) were also derived. Nine RCTs enrolling 1,682 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, systemic thrombolysis was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality (1.7% vs. 3.8%; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.39-1.38; p = 0.33) with moderate robustness (RFI = 8; RFQ = 0.004; NNT 91; RRR 27%; ARR 2.1%). Mortality was highly fragile in high-risk PE (RFI = 0) and fragile in intermediate-risk patients (RFI = 4). Systemic thrombolysis moderately reduced recurrent PE (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.18-0.97; FI = 5; RFQ = 0.002) and prevented clinical deterioration in intermediate-risk patients (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.15-0.65; FI = 8; RFQ = 0.006; NNT 29; RRR 71%; ARR 3.5%). Major bleeding was robustly increased (FI = 30; RFQ = 0.001; NNH 17), mainly driven by tenecteplase (FI = 9; RFQ = 0.007; NNH 11), whereas alteplase showed no significant increase (RFI = 3). Mortality benefit of systemic thrombolysis is fragile, while major bleeding risk is robust, underscoring the limitations of current guidelines and the need for adequately powered RCTs to inform individualized treatment in high- and intermediate-risk PE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42315722What 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.