ArticleClinical epidemiology2012
Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical patients: too much or too little?
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially serious complication occurring in 1%-2% of hospitalized medical patients. Despite this low absolute risk, as many as 82% of medical patients are considered to be at increased risk of developing VTE and are eligible for medical thromboprophylaxis. In this commentary, The author will discuss the main findings of a recent paper published in Clinical Epidemiology that questions the large proportion of individuals who are eligible for medical thromboprophylaxis, and also discuss the potential implications for the prevention of VTE. The recent paper demonstrated that when a population is divided into high- and low-risk groups, the maximum absolute risk depends on the inverse of the proportion of patients that is considered to be high risk. Consequently, even an effective treatment will only result in a small reduction in the absolute risk when the high-risk group comprises the largest proportion of this population. For medical thromboprophylaxis, this implies that even patients considered to be at high-risk for developing VTE have a maximum absolute VTE risk of 2% when the overall risk is 1.6%. Therefore, even an effective preventive initiative will only result in a small risk reduction. This small potential benefit should be weighed against potential harms associated with prophylaxis, mainly bleeding events. Still, there may be a reasonable overall balance between prevention of pulmonary embolism and major bleeding, mainly because major bleeding events are rare. Nonetheless, this discussion underscores that future risk prediction models should aim to predict the benefits and harms in individual patients in order to provide optimal care for the right patients.
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.