Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27209202›Full record

Trial reportJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2016

Prescriber knowledge and attitudes regarding non-administration of prescribed pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Kara L Piechowski, Stacy Elder, Leigh E Efird, Elliott R Haut, Michael B Streiff, Brandyn D Lau, Peggy S Kraus, Cynthia S Rand, Victor O Popoola, Deborah B Hobson and 3 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kara L PiechowskiDepartment of Pharmacy, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. kpiechowski1@gmail.com.
Stacy ElderDepartment of Pharmacy, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Leigh E EfirdDepartment of Pharmacy, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Elliott R HautDivision of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael B StreiffArmstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Brandyn D LauDivision of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Peggy S KrausDepartment of Pharmacy, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Cynthia S RandPulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Department, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Victor O PopoolaDivision of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Deborah B HobsonArmstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Norma E FarrowArmstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Dauryne ShafferArmstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kenneth M ShermockDepartment of Pharmacy, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Johns Hopkins Hospital · USJohns Hopkins University · USNational Patient Safety Foundation · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is important patient safety practice in hospitalized patients. However, a substantial number of ordered doses are not administered. Patient and nursing attitudes and behaviors can influence whether a patient receives a dose. The objective of this single center study was to evaluate prescriber knowledge and attitudes regarding missed doses of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. An anonymous, 9-question survey was administered to internal medicine and general surgery resident physicians. The survey captured prescriber opinions on issues related to non-administration of VTE prophylaxis. Thirty-two percent of medicine residents compared with 3 % of surgery residents felt pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was not necessary in an independently ambulating patient (P < 0.001). Medicine residents were more likely to agree that it is appropriate for nurses to make clinical decisions to determine whether a dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis should be administered to a patient (24 vs. 0 %, P < 0.001). Study findings indicate the need for additional resident physician education. Further investigation is needed to assess these beliefs and ensure patients receive necessary VTE prophylaxis.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsInternship and ResidencyKnowledgeFemaleHumansMaleVenous ThromboembolismPatient safetySurveyThromboembolismVTE prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID27209202
OpenAlexW2394581503

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.