Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30446983›Full record

Trial reportClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2019

Improvement of appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients with a multiscreen e-alert system: a single-centre experience.

R Figueroa, A Alfonso, J López-Picazo, I Gil-Bazo, A García-Mouriz, J Hermida, J A Páramo, R Lecumberri

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2025
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R FigueroaHematology Service, University Clinic of Navarra, Av. Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
A AlfonsoHematology Service, University Clinic of Navarra, Av. Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
J López-PicazoOncology Department, University Clinic of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
I Gil-BazoOncology Department, University Clinic of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
A García-MourizInformatics Service, University Clinic of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
J HermidaCenter for Applied Medical Research, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
J A PáramoHematology Service, University Clinic of Navarra, Av. Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain.
R LecumberriHematology Service, University Clinic of Navarra, Av. Pío XII 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain. rlecumber@unav.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8850-8866
Clinica Universidad de Navarra · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThromboprophylaxis use among medical inpatients, including cancer patients, is suboptimal. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a novel multiscreen version (v2.0) of an e-alert system for VTE prevention in hospitalised cancer medical patients compared to the original software.

methodsProspective study including 989 consecutive adult cancer patients with high-risk of VTE. Patients were followed-up 30 days post-discharge. Two periods were defined, according to the operative software.

resultsE-alert v2.0 was associated with an increase in the use of LMWH prophylaxis (65.5% vs. 72.0%); risk difference (95% CI) 0.064 (0.0043-0.12). Only 16% of patients in whom LMWH prophylaxis was not prescribed lacked a contraindication. No significant differences in the rates of VTE (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and major bleeding (2.7% vs. 4.0%) were observed.

conclusionsE-alert v2.0 further increased the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients, although was not associated with a reduction in VTE incidence.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHemorrhageHospitalizationHumansIncidenceMaleMedical Order Entry SystemsMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrognosisProspective StudiesPulmonary EmbolismRisk AssessmentSoftwareAnticoagulantsCancerElectronic alertsLow molecular weight heparinProphylaxisVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID30446983
OpenAlexW2900654490

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.