Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22446990›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2012

Coagulation Day 2010: an Austrian survey on the routine of thromboprophylaxis in intensive care.

E Schaden, P G Metnitz, G Pfanner, S Heil, T Pernerstorfer, P Perger, H Schoechl, D Fries, M Guetl, S Kozek-Langenecker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. ICM focus on thrombosis and bleeding.Intensive care medicine · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

E SchadenDepartment of Anesthesiology, General Intensive Care and Pain Control, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. eva.schaden@meduniwien.ac.at
P G Metnitz
G Pfanner
S Heil
T Pernerstorfer
P Perger
H Schoechl
D Fries
M Guetl
S Kozek-Langenecker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common but often overlooked life-threatening complication of critical illness. The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to assess current practice of thromboprophylaxis as well as adherence to international guidelines.

methodsAfter ethics committee approval, all intensive care units in Austrian hospitals treating adult patients were invited to participate in this web-based survey. Anonymized data on each patient treated at the participating intensive care units on Coagulation Day 2010 were collected using an electronic case report form. Risk assessment, choice and monitoring of anticoagulants, means of mechanical prophylaxis, and demographic data were recorded.

resultsData from 325 critically ill patients were collected. Patients had a median of four risk factors for thrombosis and 6 % suffered from VTE. Of the 325 patients, 80 % received low molecular weight heparins subcutaneously, 10 % received unfractionated heparin intravenously, 1 % received alternative anticoagulants and 9 % received no pharmacological prophylaxis. Mechanical prophylaxis was used in 49 % with a predominant use of graduated compression stockings. In 39 % a combination of pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis was applied and 5 % received no prophylaxis at all. Overall guideline adherence was 40 % on Coagulation Day 2010.

conclusionCurrent practice of thromboprophylaxis is predominantly based on the administration of low molecular weight heparins prescribed at rather arbitrary doses without a discernible relationship to drug monitoring, thromboembolic risk factors, vasopressor use or fluid balance. The use of mechanical prophylaxis, evaluation of risk scores and overall guideline adherence must be further encouraged by education, training and communication.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsAgedAged, 80 and overAustriaFemaleHealth Care SurveysHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Risk FactorsStockings, CompressionSurveys and QuestionnairesThromboembolismHeparin, Low-Molecular-Weight

Identifiers

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.