Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

58 questions · 58 findings · 6 reviews · Vascular

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 6 · 10.3%GRADE not reported 4 · 6.9%Very low 11 · 19%Low 21 · 36.2%Moderate 16 · 27.6%High 0 · 0%

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

Vessel patency ‐ radiological success ‐ complete (to end of treatment) · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

Intra‐arterial delivery may leads to higher vessel patency ‐ radiological success ‐ complete (to end of treatment) compared with intravenous delivery (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 13.22 [2.79, 62.67]
1 study · 40 participants
Low

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

Duration of thrombolysis (to end of treatment) · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 78 participants
Very low

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

CVA (up to 6 months) · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 78 participants
Very low

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

Major bleeding · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

It is very uncertain whether intra‐arterial delivery changes major bleeding (up to 6 months) compared with intravenous delivery (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.12 [0.01, 2.53]
1 study · 40 participants
Very low

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Catheter‐related blood stream infection · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in catheter‐related blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.61 [0.08, 4.68]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Low

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Thrombophlebitis (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in thrombophlebitis (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.07 [0.93, 1.25]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Thrombophlebitis (per device days) (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in thrombophlebitis (per device days) (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.9 [0.76, 1.08]
6 studies · 32709 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

All‐cause blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in all‐cause blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.47 [0.15, 1.53]
1 study · 3283 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Cost of hospitalisation · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 4244 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Infiltration (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement probably leads to higher infiltration (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.16 [1.06, 1.26]
6 studies · 7123 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Catheter blockage (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement probably leads to higher catheter blockage (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.14 [1.01, 1.29]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Moderate

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin vs unfractionated heparin

Symptomatic recurrent VTE at 3 months · people aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of new or recurrent VTE

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin showed no clear difference in symptomatic recurrent VTE at 3 months compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.66 [0.89, 3.1]
8 studies · 965 participants
Low

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin vs unfractionated heparin

Symptomatic recurrent DVT at 3 months · people aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of new or recurrent VTE

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin showed no clear difference in symptomatic recurrent DVT at 3 months compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 3.29 [0.64, 17.06]
1 study · 115 participants
Low

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin vs unfractionated heparin

PE at 3 months · people aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of new or recurrent VTE

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin showed no clear difference in PE at 3 months compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.44 [0.73, 2.84]
9 studies · 1161 participants
Low

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin vs unfractionated heparin

VTE‐related mortality4 · people aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of new or recurrent VTE

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin showed no clear difference in VTE‐related mortality at 3 months compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.98 [0.2, 4.88]
9 studies · 1168 participants
Low

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin vs unfractionated heparin

Major bleedingd (3 months) · people aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of new or recurrent VTE

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin showed no clear difference in major bleedingd (7 days ‐ 12 months) compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.91 [0.42, 1.97]
4 studies · 583 participants
Low

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin vs unfractionated heparin

All‐cause mortality (5 days to 12 months) · people aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of new or recurrent VTE

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality (5 days to 12 months) compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.74 [0.67, 4.51]
8 studies · 972 participants
Low

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin vs unfractionated heparin

Asymptomatic VTE at 3 months · people aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of new or recurrent VTE

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found