Observational studyAnales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003)2015
[Thromboprophylaxis in critically ill children in Spain and Portugal].
Observational study in Anales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough critically ill children may be at risk from developing deep venous thrombosis (DVT), data on its incidence and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis are lacking.
objectiveTo describe the use of thromboprophylaxis in critically ill children in Spain and Portugal, and to compare the results with international data. MATERIAL AND
methodsSecondary analysis of the multinational study PROTRACT, carried out in 59 PICUs from 7 developed countries (4 from Portugal and 6 in Spain). Data were collected from patients less than 18 years old, who did not receive therapeutic thromboprophylaxis.
resultsA total of 308 patients in Spanish and Portuguese (Iberian) PICUS were compared with 2176 admitted to international PICUs. Risk factors such as femoral vein (P=.01), jugular vein central catheter (P<.001), cancer (P=.03), and sepsis (P<.001), were more frequent in Iberian PICUs. The percentage of patients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was similar in both groups (15.3% vs. 12.0%). Low molecular weight heparin was used more frequently in Iberian patients (P<.001). In treated children, prior history of thrombosis (P=.02), femoral vein catheter (P<.001), cancer (P=.02) and cranial trauma or craniectomy (P=.006), were more frequent in Iberian PICUs. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in only 6.8% of candidates in Iberian PICUs, compared with 23.8% in the international PICUs (P<.001).
conclusionsDespite the presence of risk factors for DVT in many patients, thromboprophylaxis is rarely prescribed, with low molecular weight heparin being the most used drug. Passive thromboprophylaxis use is anecdotal. There should be a consensus on guidelines of thromboprophylaxis in critically ill children.
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.