Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21748497›Full record

ReviewNeurocritical care2011

Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis.

Paul Vespa, Participants in the International Multi-Disciplinary Consensus Conference on the Critical Care Management of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurocritical care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul VespaDivision of Neurosurgery, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. PVespa@mednet.ucla.edu
Participants in the International Multi-Disciplinary Consensus Conference on the Critical Care Management of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
University of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although clinicians are generally advised to use prophylactic therapy to reduce the risk for developing deep venous thrombosis in patients after repair of ruptured aneurysms, limited data are available to guide specific therapeutic decisions. An electronic literature search was conducted to identify English-language articles that addressed prophylactic treatment for deep venous thrombosis after subarachnoid hemorrhage published between 1980 and March 2011. A total of 12 articles were included in this review, including seven original research studies and one meta-analysis. The incidence of deep venous thrombosis varied among studies, with the highest incidence reported with prospective ultrasound screening. Poor-grade patients are at highest risk. Mechanical prophylactic methods appear to be modestly effective as monotherapy, without significant risk for the typical patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Unfractionated heparin is moderately effective but carries a small risk of intracranial hemorrhage. Low molecular weight heparin has been linked to an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage. Limited data are available to direct the timing and duration of prophylactic therapies.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAnticoagulantsCritical CareHumansIncidenceRisk FactorsSubarachnoid HemorrhageVenous ThrombosisAnticoagulants

Identifiers

PMID21748497
OpenAlexW2092729793

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.