↓ Skip to main content

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004437.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiukui Hao, Bi Rong Dong, Jirong Yue, Taixiang Wu, Guan J Liu

Abstract

Thrombolytic therapy (powerful anticoagulation drugs) is usually reserved for patients with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhages. This is the second update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006. To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. For this update the Cochrane Vascular Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched September 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 8, 2014). We also searched individual trial collections and private databases, along with bibliographies of relevant articles. We handsearched relevant medical journals. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy followed by heparin versus heparin alone, heparin plus placebo or surgical intervention in patients with acute PE. We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug. Two authors (BD and QH) assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data. We identified 18 trials with a total of 2197 participants for inclusion in the review. We were not able to include one study in the meta-analysis because it had no data to extract. Most of the studies carried a high risk of bias because of high or unclear risk relating to randomisation and blinding. Meta-analysis showed that, compared with heparin alone, or heparin plus placebo, thrombolytics plus heparin can reduce the odds of death (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.87, P = 0.02, low quality evidence) and recurrence of PE (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, P = 0.02, low quality evidence). The effects of death weakened when we excluded four studies at high risk of bias from analysis: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, P = 0.08. The incidence of major and minor haemorrhagic events was higher in the thrombolytics group than in the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.95 to 4.31, P < 0.001, low quality evidence; OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06, P = 0.001, very low quality evidence, respectively). Length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -1.35, 95% CI -4.27 to 1.58) and quality of life were similar between the two treatment groups. Stroke was reported in one study and occurred more often in the thrombolytics group than in the control group, although the confidence interval was wide (OR 12.10, 95% CI 1.57 to 93.39). Limited information from a small number of trials indicated that thrombolytics may improve haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment, echocardiograms, pulmonary hypertension, coagulation parameters, clinical outcomes and survival time to a greater extent than heparin alone. However, the heterogeneity of the studies and small number of participants involved warrant caution when interpreting results. Similarily, fewer patients from the thrombolytics group required escalation of treatment. None of the included studies reported on post-thrombotic syndrome or compared the cost of the different treatments. There is low quality evidence that thrombolytics reduce death following acute pulmonary embolism compared with heparin. Furthermore, thrombolytic therapies included in the review were heterogeneous. Thrombolytic therapy may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of pulmonary emboli but may cause more major and minor haemorrhagic events and stroke. More high quality double blind RCTs assessing safety and cost-effectiveness are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 114 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Postgraduate 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 13 11%
Other 12 10%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Psychology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 25 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,064,935
of 14,539,453 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,097
of 10,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,254
of 249,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,539,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.