ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2017
Secondary prophylaxis decision-making in venous thromboembolism: interviews on clinical practice in thirteen countries.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Α 6-month, multicenter, observational study investigating the treatment of venous thromboembolism in Greece (VICTORIA study).Thrombosis journal · 2025Article
- Impact of the VTE-PREDICT calculator on clinicians' decision making in fictional patients with venous thromboembolism: a randomized controlled trial.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Extended anticoagulant therapy in venous thromboembolism: a balanced, fractional factorial, clinical vignette-based study.Haematologica · 2019Article
- Understanding patients' care barriers in the treatment of venous thromboembolism.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2019Article
- Secondary prophylaxis decision-making in venous thromboembolism: interviews on clinical practice in thirteen countries.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSecondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a topical and contentious point of debate for thrombosis experts around the globe. This discussion centers around two aspects: optimum treatment duration and which type and dosage of thromboprophylaxis to prescribe. Collectives of thrombosis experts have tried to steer the debate by issuing periodical best-practice guidelines. However, the lack of adherence to said guidelines is such that there is a growing body of research devoted to this very problem. Most of the studies on the subject retrospectively observe a single setting, which leaves important questions as to the generalizability of their findings. As each setting appears to face its own unique challenges, the overarching question of why there is so much variance between physicians when it comes to the secondary prevention of VTE is never fully addressed.
methodsFor this study, we asked thirteen senior-level physicians representing equally as many countries about the current state of clinical practice regarding the secondary prevention of VTE.
resultsThe discussion identifies several barriers to adequate VTE prevention, and hints at area-specific idiosyncrasies that may explain why physicians from different locales treat VTE patients differently.
conclusionUniversal treatment guidelines may not fully translate to clinical practice in many areas, and that promoting local guidelines to supplement the universal guidelines may be beneficial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.