Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 25%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 75%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Mechanical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique

Major adverse events · thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts

It is very uncertain whether mechanical thrombectomy changes major adverse events compared with pulse spray technique (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.26 [0.54, 2.92]
3 studies · 372 participants
Very low

Continuous infusion vs pulse spray technique

Major adverse events · thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) vs pulse spray technique

Major adverse events · thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts

It is very uncertain whether pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (Cragg® catheter) changes major adverse events compared with pulse spray technique (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.58 [0.15, 16.71]
1 study · 77 participants
Very low

Surgical thrombectomy vs pulse spray technique

Major adverse events · thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts

It is very uncertain whether surgical thrombectomy changes major adverse events compared with pulse spray technique (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for thrombosed haemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas and grafts 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.33 [0.02, 7.32]
1 study · 20 participants
Very low