Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11686983›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Heparins and mechanical methods for thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery.

P Wille-Jørgensen, M S Rasmussen, B R Andersen, L Borly

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 159 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2013
    Review
  7. Venous thromboembolic disease in colorectal patients.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2009
    Article
  8. Review
  9. How evidence-based are CAGS surgeons really?Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P Wille-JørgensenDept. of surgical gastroenterology K, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 24, Copenhagen NV, Denmark, DK-2400. peerwille@vip.cybercity.dk
M S Rasmussen
B R Andersen
L Borly
Bispebjerg Hospital · DKNæstved Sygehus · DKUniversity College Capital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal surgery implies higher risk of postoperative thromboembolic complications as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) than general surgery. The best prophylaxis in general surgery is heparin and graded compression stockings. No systematic review on combination prophylaxis or on thrombosis prophylaxis in colorectal surgery has been published.

objectivesTo compare the incidence of postoperative thromboembolism after colorectal surgery using prophylactic methods focussing on heparins and mechanical methods alone and in combinations. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE back to 1970. Abstract books from major congresses were handsearched as were reference lists from previously performed reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCT or CCT comparing prophylactic interventions and/or placebo. Outcomes were ascending venography, 125 I-fibrinogen uptake test, ultrasound methods, pulmonary scintigraphy. Studies, using thermographic methods, other isotopic methods, plethysmographic methods, and purely clinical methods as the only diagnostic measure were excluded. 558 studies were identified - 477 were excluded. Only 3 of the identified studies focused exclusively on colorectal surgery. Studies of general surgery contain considerable numbers of colorectal patients. The authors of 66 studies in general and/or abdominal surgery were contacted for retrieving the results from the colorectal patients. Answers were received from very few. 19 studies entered this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All studies and all data extraction were performed independently by at least two of the authors. Outcome was deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Analysis of bleeding complications were unfeasible. 12 meaningful outcomes were analysed by means of the fixed effects model with Peto Odds Ratios. MAIN

resultsHeparins versus no treatment: Any kind of heparincompared to no treatment or placebo (comparison 07.03, 11 studies). Heparin is better in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 0.32 (95% Confidence Interval 0.20-0.53) Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (comparison 08.03, 4 studies). The two treatments were found equally effective in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio 1.01 (95% Confidence Interval 0.67-1.52). Mechanical methods (comparison 10.3, 2 studies). The combination of graded compression stockings and LDH is better than LDH alone in preventing DVT and/or PE with a Peto Odds ratio at 4.17 (95% Confidence Interval 1.37-12.70). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe optimal prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is the combination of graduated compression stockings and low-dose unfractionated heparin. The unfractionated heparin can be replaced with low molecular weight heparin.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryAnticoagulantsBandagesConfidence IntervalsHeparinHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansOdds RatioPostoperative ComplicationsPulmonary EmbolismVenous ThrombosisAnticoagulantsHeparinHeparin, Low-Molecular-Weight

Identifiers

PMID11686983
PMCPMC8406850
OpenAlexW1586324690

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.