ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2011
Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in general surgery: guidelines differ and we still need local policies.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has become a major issue for surgeons both in the UK and worldwide. Several different sources of guidance on VTE prophylaxis are available but these differ in design and detail.
methodsTwo similar audits were performed, one year apart, on the VTE prophylaxis prescribed for all general surgical inpatients during a single week (90 patients and 101 patients). Classification of patients into different risk groups and compliance in prescribing prophylaxis were examined using different international, national and local guidelines.
resultsThere were significant differences between the numbers of patients in high, moderate and low-risk groups according to the different guidelines. When groups were combined to indicate simply 'at risk' or 'not at risk' (in the manner of one of the guidelines), then differences were not significant. Our compliance improved from the first audit to the second. Patients at high risk received VTE prophylaxis according to guidance more consistently than those at low risk.
conclusionsDifferences in guidance on VTE prophylaxis can affect compliance significantly when auditing practice, depending on the choice of 'gold standard'. National guidance does not remove the need for clear and detailed local policies. Making decisions about policies for lower-risk patients can be more difficult than for those at high risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.