Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19898788›Full record

ReviewWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2009

[Anticoagulation in critically ill patient].

Dietmar Fries

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Dietmar FriesKlinische Abteilung für Allgemeine und Chirurgische Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinik für Anästhesie und Allgemeine Intensivmedizin, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. dietmar.fries@i-med.ac.at
Innsbruck Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incidence of deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients depends on the underlying disease but may be as high as 60%. In patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, Surviving Sepsis Campaign clearly recommends administering anticoagulation in the absence of specific contraindications. The article discusses risk factor for thromboembolic events in critical illness, non-pharmacological and pharmacological thrombosis prophylaxis as well as means of monitoring anticoagulation. Considering the ideal route of administration in intensive care patients, peripheral vasoconstriction, edema, shock, and administration of catecholamines may reduce bioavailability and efficacy of subcutaneous administration of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Dosing of the direct thrombin inhibitor argatroban depends on the severity of illness (SAPS II-score) and is up to 10-times lower than in patients without critical illness.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsArginineBiological AvailabilityBlood Coagulation TestsContraindicationsCritical CareDrug MonitoringHeparinHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansPipecolic AcidsPulmonary EmbolismRisk FactorsSepsisShock, SepticSulfonamidesAnticoagulantsargatrobanArginineHeparinHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightPipecolic AcidsSulfonamides

Identifiers

PMID19898788
OpenAlexW2602702426

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.