MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus systemic thrombolysis in the treatment of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis

2023· article· en· W4383483106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huangtai Miao, Ying Liang, Xiaoying Li, Xiao Wang, Huijuan Zuo, Zhechun Zeng, Shaoping Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Cardiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismThrombolysisOdds ratioInternal medicineMortality rateMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)Cochrane LibraryCohortCohort studyGastrointestinal bleedingConfidence intervalSurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec><strong>OBJECTIVE</strong> To evaluate the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus systemic thrombolysis (ST) in the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE). </sec><sec><strong>METHODS</strong> The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched to collect the literature on the comparison of the results of CDT and ST in the treatment of PE from the beginning of their records to May 2020, and meta-analysis was performed by STATA software (version 15.1). Using standardized data-collection forms, the authors screened the studies and independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Cohort studies that examined the following results were included in the current study: in-hospital mortality, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, intracranial hemorrhage rate, the incidence of shock, and hospital length of stay. </sec><sec><strong>RESULTS</strong> A total of eight articles, with 13,242 participants, involving 3962 participants in the CDT group and 9280 participants in the ST group were included. CDT compared with ST in the treatment of PE can significantly affect in-hospital mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30–0.56, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05], all-cause bleeding rate (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04–1.39, <i>P</i> = 0.012), gastrointestinal bleeding rate (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.13–1.81, <i>P</i> = 0.003), the incidence of shock (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37–0.57, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05), and hospital length of stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07–0.25, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05]. However, there was no significant effect on intracranial hemorrhage rate in patients with PE (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47–1.03, <i>P</i> = 0.070). </sec><sec><strong>CONCLUSIONS</strong> CDT is a viable alternative to ST in the treatment of PE, as it can significantly reduce in-hospital mortality rate, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, and incidence of shock. However, CDT may prolong hospital length of stay to a certain extent. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CDT and ST in the treatment of acute PE and other clinical outcomes. </sec>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric CardiologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207