Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26316770›Full record

ReviewVascular health and risk management2015

Assessing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism--a practical approach.

Jennifer Fahrni, Marc Husmann, Silvia B Gretener, Hong H Keo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vascular health and risk management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Hand grip strength in venous thromboembolism: risk of recurrence and mortality.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Joint Guideline on Venous Thromboembolism - 2022.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Jennifer FahrniDivision of Angiology, Medical University Clinic, Kantonsspital Aarau AG, Aarau, Switzerland.
Marc HusmannClinic for Angiology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Silvia B GretenerClinic for Angiology Oberaargau, Langenthal, Switzerland.
Hong H KeoDivision of Angiology, Medical University Clinic, Kantonsspital Aarau AG, Aarau, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This risk is lowered by anticoagulation, with a large effect in the initial phase following the venous thromboembolic event, and with a smaller effect in terms of secondary prevention of recurrence when extended anticoagulation is performed. On the other hand, extended anticoagulation is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding and thus leads to morbidity and mortality. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the risk of recurrence for VTE on an individual basis, and a recommendation for secondary prophylaxis should be specifically based on risk calculation of recurrence of VTE and bleeding. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of relevant risk factors for recurrent VTE and a practical approach for assessing the risk of recurrence in daily practice.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAnticoagulantsDrug Administration ScheduleHemorrhageHumansPredictive Value of TestsRecurrenceRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSecondary PreventionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantshemorrhagerisk assessmentthrombosis

Identifiers

PMID26316770
PMCPMC4544622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.