ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2013
Venous thromboembolism risk assessment in hospitalised patients: a new proposal.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2013. 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, 4 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCross-sectional studies have been conducted to evaluate the adequacy of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. However, these studies often evaluate prophylaxis on the data collection day, without analysing the prophylactic dose or duration and without reference to inappropriate use in patients without risk. A prospective, observational study was performed to assess the adequacy of prophylaxis in a general medicine ward of a university hospital.
methodIn the analysis, the use of the proper prophylactic dose at the correct time, the use in patients with contraindications, and the misuse in patients without risk of venous thromboembolism were considered.
resultsA total of 245 patients were evaluated. Of these patients, 104 (42.4%) were considered to be at risk, and 82.7% either received adequate prophylaxis (i.e., the correct dose at the right time) or did not receive prophylaxis because it was contraindicated. Among the 141 patients who were not at risk, 81 (57.4%) incorrectly received prophylaxis, the majority (61/81) of whom presented with risk factors but did not demonstrate reduced mobility. Among the entire group, only 59.6% of patients were properly treated.
conclusionsThe evaluation of prophylaxis adequacy should consider not only whether the correct dose is administered at the correct time but also whether it is used in patients with contraindications and whether it is inappropriately administered to patients who are not at 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.