ArticleThe Australasian medical journal2014
Current state of medical thromboprophylaxis in Australia.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Data on Characteristics and Management of Community Patients Receiving Anticoagulation Therapy Who Presented with Acute Bleeding to the Emergency Department at a Regional Australian Hospital: A Prospective Observational Study.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2021Article
- A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of mechanical and pharmacological VTE prophylaxis after lower limb arthroplasty in Australia.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.