Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25403719›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2015

The geko™ electro-stimulation device for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a NICE medical technology guidance.

Jennifer A Summers, James Clinch, Muralikrishnan Radhakrishnan, Andy Healy, Viktoria McMillan, Elizabeth Morris, Tiago Rua, Mercy Ofuya, Yanzhong Wang, Paul W Dimmock and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03111758 (Flow Augmentation With Geko Device in Patients With Postthrombotic Syndrome a Prospective Randomised Cross-Over Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT03111758 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Flow Augmentation With Geko Device in Patients With Postthrombotic Syndrome a Prospective Randomised Cross-Over Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2017 to 2021Enrolled10ConditionsPostthrombotic SyndromeArmsFlow augmentation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. The dilemma of thromboprophylaxis in stroke patients.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

13 authors.

Jennifer A SummersKing's Technology Evaluation Centre, London, UK, jennifer.a.summers@kcl.ac.uk.
James Clinch
Muralikrishnan Radhakrishnan
Andy Healy
Viktoria McMillan
Elizabeth Morris
Tiago Rua
Mercy Ofuya
Yanzhong Wang
Paul W Dimmock
Cornelius Lewis
Janet L Peacock
Stephen F Keevil

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The geko™ device is a single-use, battery-powered, neuromuscular electrostimulation device that aims to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected the geko™ device for evaluation, and invited the manufacturer, Firstkind Ltd, to submit clinical and economic evidence. King's Technology Evaluation Centre, an External Assessment Centre (EAC) commissioned by the NICE, independently assessed the evidence submitted. The sponsor submitted evidence related to the geko™ device and, in addition, included studies of other related devices as further clinical evidence to support a link between increased blood flow and VTE prophylaxis. The EAC assessed this evidence, conducted its own systematic review and concluded that there is currently limited direct evidence that geko™ prevents VTE. The sponsor's cost model is based on the assumption that patients with an underlying VTE risk and subsequently treated with geko™ will experience a reduction in their baseline risk. The EAC assessed this cost model but questioned the validity of some model assumptions. Using the EACs revised cost model, the cost savings for geko™ prophylaxis against a 'no prophylaxis' strategy were estimated as £197 per patient. Following a second public consultation, taking into account a change in the original draft recommendations, the NICE medical technologies guidance MTG19 was issued in June 2014. This recommended the adoption of the geko™ for use in people with a high risk of VTE and when other mechanical/pharmacological methods of prophylaxis are impractical or contraindicated in selected patients within the National Health Service in England.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalElectric Stimulation TherapyEnglandHumansLower ExtremityPractice Guidelines as TopicVenous Thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID25403719
PMCPMC4376951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.