Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11030468›Full record

ReviewDrugs2000

Proficient and cost-effective approaches for the prevention and treatment of venous thrombosis and thromboembolism.

R L Bick

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

R L BickDepartment of Medicine and Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA. rbick@onramp.net
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thrombosis is clearly a common cause of death in the US. It is obviously of major importance to define the aetiology of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) as (i) many of these events are preventable if appropriate therapy, dependent upon the risk factors known is utilised; (ii) appropriate antithrombotic therapy will decrease risks of recurrence; (iii) the type of defect(s) and risk(s) will determine length of time the patient should remain on therapy for secondary prevention and (iv) if the defect is hereditary appropriate family members can be assessed. Aside from mortality, significant additional morbidity occurs from DVT including, but not limited to, stasis ulcers and other sequelae of post-phlebitic syndrome. Numerous studies have provided evidence that medical patients and patients undergoing surgery or trauma are at significant risk for developing DVT, including pulmonary embolism (PE). Thus, an important task for the clinician is to prevent DVT and its complications. It is important to define risk groups where prophylaxis must be considered. The attitudes and beliefs towards prophylaxis show great regional variations. This is true for the definition of risk groups, the proportion of patients receiving prophylaxis and prophylactic modalities used. For this reason, various 'consensus conference' groups have attempted to alleviate these problems; the primary mission of consensus guidelines is to provide optimal direction to the clinician in the setting of clinical practice. If the practice guidelines generated are successful they will assist clinicians in decision-making for their patients, and they will also provide protection against unjustified malpractice actions. Therapy may be complex, as clinical studies continue to identify more effective treatments. This review includes currently accepted approaches to the treatment of DVT. The clinical course of DVT is highly dynamic. When the response to therapy is not as expected, more than one cause of DVT may be present in a patient. Treatment must address the primary coagulopathy as well as any precipitating factors. The risk of pharmacological intervention must be balanced against potential benefit. If the incidence of DVT in a given disorder is low and if the mortality rate is similarly low, therapy with an agent known to be associated with a high risk for complications, such as warfarin, would not be indicated. If DVT is seen primarily after surgery or in other high-risk situations, therapy might be limited to a fixed time period. However, if the ongoing risk of DVT remains high or if a history of recurrent DVT dictates, lifelong therapy might be indicated. The recommendations presented are based upon published controlled trials; however, indications for therapy and therapeutic agents of choice will continually evolve. By applying the principles outlined in this review, substantial cost savings, reduction in morbidity and reductions in mortality should occur.

Indexed as

AdultAnticoagulantsBandagesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHeparinHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsThromboembolismVenous ThrombosisAnticoagulantsHeparin

Identifiers

PMID11030468
OpenAlexW2093992894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.