Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25540016›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2014

Systematic reviews of observational studies of risk of thrombosis and bleeding in urological surgery (ROTBUS): introduction and methodology.

Kari A O Tikkinen, Arnav Agarwal, Samantha Craigie, Rufus Cartwright, Michael K Gould, Jari Haukka, Richard Naspro, Giacomo Novara, Per Morten Sandset, Reed A Siemieniuk and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparative evaluation of venous thromboembolic risk in urologic inpatients using different risk assessment models.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Examining the utility of routine perioperative hemoglobin monitoring in patients undergoing radical nephrectomy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Canadian Urological Association guideline: Perioperative thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Kari A O TikkinenDepartment of Urology, Helsinki University Central Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. kari.tikkinen@gmail.com.
Arnav Agarwal
Samantha Craigie
Rufus Cartwright
Michael K Gould
Jari Haukka
Richard Naspro
Giacomo Novara
Per Morten Sandset
Reed A Siemieniuk
Philippe D Violette
Gordon H Guyatt
McMaster University · CAHelsinki University Hospital · FIImperial College London · GBKaiser Permanente · USOspedale Papa Giovanni XXIII · ITUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of Toronto · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacological thromboprophylaxis in the peri-operative period involves a trade-off between reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and an increase in bleeding. Baseline risks, in the absence of prophylaxis, for VTE and bleeding are known to vary widely between urological procedures, but their magnitude is highly uncertain. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing baseline risks are uncommon, needed, and require methodological innovation. In this article, we describe the rationale and methods for a series of systematic reviews of the risks of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation in urological surgery. METHODS/

designWe searched MEDLINE from January 1, 2000 until April 10, 2014 for observational studies reporting on symptomatic VTE or bleeding after urological procedures. Additional studies known to experts and studies cited in relevant review articles were added. Teams of two reviewers, independently assessed articles for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and abstracted data. We derived best estimates of risk from the median estimates among studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary endpoints were 30-day post-operative risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation, stratified by procedure and patient risk factors. DISCUSSION: This series of systematic reviews will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding. Our work advances standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at best estimates of risk (including modeling of timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates of risk. The results will be incorporated in the upcoming European Association Urology Guideline on Thromboprophylaxis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014010342.

Indexed as

Urologic Surgical ProceduresHemorrhageHumansObservational Studies as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsResearch DesignThromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID25540016
PMCPMC4307154
OpenAlexW2095859213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.