Site Tools


jc

**This is an old revision of the document!**

  • Primary Outcomes
  • Secondary Outcomes
  • Reported Result
    • “When compared with AC alone, CDT had lower mortality but high major bleeding and numerically higher ICH”
    • “The risk of morality and ICH was high with ST when compared with CDT.
    • Findings were similar when analysis was restricted to intermediate risk PE.

Problems

The Definition of Risk Groups is not Stated

  • Uses “intermediate risk,” “high risk”, and “intermediate-high risk,” thus mixing terminologies
    • 2019 ESC: low, intermediate-low, intermediate-high, high
    • 2011 AHA: massive, sub-massive, low risk
    • 2016 CHEST: low high, PE without hypotension, PE with hypotension

Very few RCT patients got CDT

Total Papers (n=45)
patient_typenumberpercent
AC1997624.4%
CDT961011.8%
ST5211963.8%
total81705NA
Intermediate-Risk Papers (n=20)
patienttype^number^percent^ |AC|8873|75.9%| |CDT|1929|16.5%| |ST|883|7.5%| |total|11685|14.3% (of $n{total}$)
RCT Trials Only (n=17)
patienttype^number^percent^ |AC|1101|49.8%| |CDT|78|3.5%| |ST|1031|46.7%| |total|2210|2.7% (of $n{total}$)

This means that the number of CDT patients from RCTs is only $\frac{n{CDT}}{n{total}}=\frac{78}{81611}=0.0956\%$ of the study total!!

The Primary Outcome is not reported correctly

The paper utilized a network meta-analysis (1,2,3).

They list that ”[t]he primary analysis compared CDT and systemic fibrinolysis with AC alone.“ However, they report the CDT vs AC and ST vs AC outcomes, not the network of all three.

jc.1713918602.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/04/24 00:30 by admin