SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of low-dose thrombolysis in intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose thrombolysis in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled studies, and cohort studies investigating low-dose thrombolysis for intermediate-risk PE were included. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (version 16.0) to calculate pooled estimates of mortality, bleeding incidence, and recurrence rates. The efficacy and safety of low-dose thrombolysis were compared with those of anticoagulation alone or full-dose thrombolysis. Results: This meta-analysis included 13 studies (1,018 patients with intermediate-risk PE). Low-dose thrombolysis yielded a 1-month and 1-year mortality of 2% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03; 0.00-0.05), recurrence of 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.02), major bleeding of 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03), and minor bleeding of 7% (95% CI: 0.05-0.10). Subgroup analysis showed ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (USAT) had 1-month and 1-year mortality rates of 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.04) and 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03), respectively, vs. 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03) and 7% (95% CI: 0.01-0.16) for low-dose systemic thrombolysis. Compared to anticoagulation alone or full-dose thrombolysis, low-dose systemic thrombolysis showed no significant differences in mortality or recurrence, but had lower bleeding risk than full-dose thrombolysis (RD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.01). USAT significantly reduced 1-month mortality vs. anticoagulation alone (RD = -0.09, 95% CI: -0.13 to -0.04); however, this stems from a single non-randomized study requiring RCT validation. Bleeding rates showed no significant difference. Conclusion: In patients with intermediate-risk PE, low-dose thrombolysis yields low mortality and recurrence rates with an acceptable bleeding risk. Compared with full-dose thrombolysis, it offers a safety advantage by reducing the incidence of bleeding; however, its comparative efficacy regarding mortality and recurrence remains undetermined and may be equivalent. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261284475.
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.