Prognostic value of echocardiography-derived right ventricular dysfunction in haemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the prognostic value of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)-derived right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in haemodynamically stable and intermediate-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), evaluate continuous RVD parameters, and assess the literature quality. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies assessing TTE-derived RVD in haemodynamically stable PE that reported in-hospital adverse events within 30 days. We determined pooled odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model, created funnel plots, evaluated the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and performed Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: Based on 55 studies (17 090 patients, 37.8% RVD), RVD was associated with combined adverse events (AEs) (OR 3.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.59-4.18), mortality (OR 2.00, CI 1.66-2.40) and PE-related mortality (OR 4.01, CI 2.79-5.78). In intermediate-risk patients, RVD was associated with AEs (OR 1.99, CI 1.17-3.37) and PE-related mortality (OR 6.16, CI 1.33-28.40), but not mortality (OR 1.63, CI 0.76-3.48). Continuous RVD parameters provide a greater spectrum of risk compared to categorical RVD. We identified publication bias, poor methodological quality in 34/55 studies and overall low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: RVD is frequent in PE and associated with adverse outcomes. However, data quality and publication bias are limitations of existing evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".