Observational studyJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2015
Continuation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hospital discharge into the outpatient setting: the ACCEPT study.
Observational study in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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.
- Factors Influencing Prescribers' Decision for Extending Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in the Medical Patient Population following Hospitalization.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transition from the hospital into the outpatient setting is a critical event for the appropriate provision of VTE prophylaxis. Data for this transition for the situation in Germany is scant. This was a retrospective, observational study in patients receiving in-hospital thromboprophylaxis and discharged with or without a recommendation to continue. Patient with previous thromboembolism were excluded. A total of 3,211 patients were identified by 518 physicians of which 2,853 had all data available for the present analysis; mean patient's age was 57.4 ± 17.5 (SD) years, 48.2% were male and bodyweight was 79.8 ± 16.1 kg. During hospitalization 95.5% of surgical and 84.0% of medical patients received any thromboprophylaxis, the mean hospital duration being 12.7 ± 20.3 days. Surgical patients had high, medium and low risk in 53.8, 37.1 and 9.1%, respectively. Medical patients had high, medium and low risk in 78.8, 19.8 and 1.4%. A hospital recommendation to continue thromboprophylaxis was given to 84.6% (95% CI 83.1-85.9%) of surgical and 64.9% (95% CI 59.1-70.6%) of medical patients and implemented in 96.6 and 94.3%, respectively. On the other hand, in patients without a respective hospital recommendation (15.4% of surgical and 35.1% of medical patients), thromboprophylaxis was continued in 65.3% of surgical and 73.1% of medical patients because of high risk. Our data illustrate acceptable rates of prophylaxis in surgical and medical patients in Germany. As the results show, it is essential that not only hospital physicians are aware of the actual risk at discharge, but office based physicians assess thromboembolic risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24996649What 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.