ArticlePloS one2018
Insights into venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized cancer patients: Lessons from a prospective study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dose-adjusted enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients: a randomized, double-blinded multicenter phase 2 trial.Blood advances · 2020Trial
- Epidemiology of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism Across the United States.American journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Nationally representative estimates of health care burden of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cancer patients.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- The efficacy of atorvastatin on inflammation and coagulation markers in high-risk thrombotic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial.Thrombosis journal · 2025Article
- Impact of COVID-19 in the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and clinical outcomes in cancer patients: a cohort study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Article
- The effectiveness of atorvastatin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy : A randomised controlled trial: open label.Thrombosis journal · 2023Article
- Correlation of Inflammation and Coagulation Markers with the Incidence of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Cancer Patients with High Risk of Thrombosis.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
- Electrophysiology Translational Considerations in Cardio-Oncology: QT and Beyond.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2020Review
- Platelet-Derived Microparticles (MPs) and Thrombin Generation Velocity in Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): Results of a Case-Control Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2020Observational
- Differences in Venous Thromboembolism Prevention and Outcome between Hospitalized Patients with Solid and Hematologic Malignancies.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospitalized cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite current recommendations in clinical guidelines, thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is underused. We performed an observational prospective study to analyse factors influencing prophylaxis use, VTE events and mortality in cancer-hospitalized patients. 1072 consecutive adult cancer patients were included in an University Hospital from April 2014 to February 2017, and followed-up for 30 days after discharge. The rate of LMWH prophylaxis was 67.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64.7% to 70.4%), with a 2.8% rate of VTE events (95% CI 1.9% to 3.9%) and 3.5% rate of major bleeding events (95% CI 2.5% to 4.8%). 80% of VTE events occurred despite appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 13.2% (95% CI 11.2% to 15.3%). Active chemotherapy treatment, hospital stay ≥ 4 days, and metastatic disease were associated with a higher use of LMWH. On the contrary, patients with hematologic malignancies, anemia or thrombocytopenia were less prone to receive thromboprophylaxis. The main reasons for not prescribing LMWH prophylaxis were thrombocytopenia (23.9%) and active/recent bleeding (21.8%). The PRETEMED score, used for VTE risk stratification, correlated with 30-day mortality. There is room for improvement in thromboprophylaxis use among hospitalized-cancer patients, especially among those with hematologic malignancies. A relevant number of VTE events occurred despite prophylaxis with LMWH. Therefore, identification of risk factors for thromboprophylaxis failure is needed.
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.