Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26221148›Full record

ArticleTanaffos2015

Adherence to Venous Thromboprophylaxis Guidelines for Medical and Surgical Inpatients of Teaching Hospitals, Shiraz-Iran.

Reza Manoucheri, Mohammad Javad Fallahi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tanaffos, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Venous Thromboembolism Risk and Adherence to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients in Uruguay: First Nationwide Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Observational
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

2 authors.

Reza ManoucheriDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Shiraz, Iran.
Mohammad Javad FallahiDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Shiraz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) exerts a considerable burden on the health care systems. Although many practice guidelines have been developed regarding prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism, there is a large gap between the recommendations and the medical practice in health care centers. In this study, we tried to assess adherence of the medical team to guidelines for venous thromboprophylaxis in medical and surgical wards of teaching hospitals affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this cross-sectional descriptive study, a total number of 500 patients were recruited among hospitalized patients in neurosurgery, orthopedics, general surgery, internal medicine, and obstetrics & gynecology departments and surgical and medical intensive care units. Afterwards, adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines was assessed by comparing the medical records of patients with proper indications extracted from the American College of Chest Physicians Guidelines for VTE prophylaxis (ACCP, 9(th) edition). In other words, for each patient a comparison between proper indications of receiving thromboprophylaxis and the regimen used in practice was made.

resultsOut of 472 patients assessed with respect to the appropriateness of the administered prophylaxis, 212 (45.1%) had received proper type of thromboprophylaxis with regard to ACCP guidelines. Orthopedic surgical wards showed the highest rate of appropriateness while neurosurgical wards showed the lowest rate of adherence (76% vs. 1.8%). The overall rate of inappropriateness was 54.9% (260 patients). Inappropriateness was divided into 3 categories: 1) patients had absolute indications to receive thromboprophylaxis but were not provided with any type of prophylaxis in practice (171 patients, 36.2% of total), 2) in presence of absolute indications, incorrect type of prophylaxis was administered (52 patients, 11% of total), 3) in absence of indications for thromboprophylaxis, patients received some forms of prophylaxis (35 patients, 7.4% of total).

conclusionThe findings of the present study showed that prophylaxis are not properly utilized and physicians' practices vary considerably among different specialties.

Indexed as

Guideline adherenceThromboprophylaxisVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID26221148
PMCPMC4515326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.