ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2017
Implications of an inpatient warfarin dosing nomogram on safety outcomes post-discharge.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of pharmacist-conducted anticoagulation patient education and telephone follow-up on transitions of care: a randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Identifying and mapping measures of medication safety during transfer of care in a digital era: a scoping literature review.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many hospitals have implemented warfarin dosing nomograms to improve patient safety. To our knowledge, no study has assessed the impact inpatient warfarin initiation has in both medical and surgical patients, on safety outcomes post discharge. To evaluate the impact of a suggested institutional nomogram for the initiation of warfarin, the primary endpoint was the incidence of bleeding throughout follow up. Secondary endpoints included the composite of INR changes ≥0.5/day and INR >4. Patients were followed for a period of 2 weeks post-discharge. The composite endpoint was evaluated for an effect on reaching therapeutic INR, time to reach therapeutic INR, and bleeding events throughout follow up. A single center retrospective study comparing the safety of adherence vs. non-adherence to a warfarin nomogram. A total of 206 patients were included, 73 patients in the nomogram adherence vs. 133 in the nonadherence arm. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who bled throughout the follow up period, adherence 9.6% vs. nonadherence to the nomogram 13.5%, p = 0.407. There was however a statistical difference in the mean total number of bleeding events, 0.096 (7/73) in the adherence vs. 0.158 (21/133) in the non-adherence arm, p = 0.022. There was also no difference in the composite endpoint, 19.2% in the adherence vs. 28.6% in the non-adherence arm p = 0.180. A positive correlation between the inpatient composite and risk of bleeding throughout follow up was noted. The findings of this study support adherence to the nomogram as opposed to non-adherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27981490What OpenQuestion holds
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.