Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24611073›Full record

ArticleThe Australasian medical journal2014

Current state of medical thromboprophylaxis in Australia.

Sophie E Noel, J Alasdair Millar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Australasian medical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Sophie E NoelDepartment of Medicine, Albany Regional Hospital, Albany, Western Australia 6330, Australia.
J Alasdair MillarDepartment of Medicine, Albany Regional Hospital, Albany, Western Australia 6330, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAustralia has two published national guidelines for general medical thromboprophylaxis (MT), but the two differ in detail and the basis for patient selection remains uncertain. Several aspects of current guidelines are controversial, as is the proposed design of a dedicated prescribing box in the National Inpatient Medication Chart.

aimTo discuss and comment on the current standing of medical thromboprophylaxis in Australia.

methodWe have marshalled literature known to us from our previous published research, and have applied this knowledge to discuss shortcomings, which, in our opinion, exist in current medical thromboprophylaxis practice, and to suggest solutions.

conclusionAustralian guidelines are flawed because they are based on unsuitable evidence (incidence of subclinical thrombotic disease) and define eligibility broadly, such that about 80 per cent of patients are considered eligible. They urge that prescribers should "consider" prophylaxis without supplying an adequate basis for doing so. They do not provide grounds for assessing the balance between hazard (in the form of major bleeds) and benefit (thrombotic events avoided). Other clinical factors promoting unnecessary use of medical thromboprophylaxis include the use of age as a risk factor and proposed inclusion of a new DVT prophylaxis section in the National Inpatient Medication Chart (NIMC), which implicitly discourages non-prescription of prophylaxis.

Indexed as

guidelineslow molecular weight heparinmedical patientsrisk factor analysisThromboprophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID24611073
PMCPMC3941577

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.