Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31011294›Full record

ReviewThrombosis journal2019

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill.

Benjamin Brenner, Russell Hull, Roopen Arya, Jan Beyer-Westendorf, James Douketis, Ismail Elalamy, Davide Imberti, Zhenguo Zhai

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Thrombosis journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Chest Pain in the Cancer Patient.European cardiology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Knowledge and Awareness of Venous Thromboembolism in Intensive Care Units in Zhejiang Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
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 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Benjamin Brenner1Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Russell Hull2Foothills Medical Centre and Thrombosis Research Unit, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Roopen Arya3King's Thrombosis Centre, Department of Haematological Medicine, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jan Beyer-Westendorf3King's Thrombosis Centre, Department of Haematological Medicine, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James Douketis5Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada.
Ismail Elalamy7Hematology and Thrombosis Center, Tenon University Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Davide Imberti8Haemostasis and Thrombosis Center, Hospital of Piacenza, Piacenza, Italy.
Zhenguo Zhai9Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Center of Respiratory Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases, Beijing, China.
China-Japan Friendship Hospital · CNKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBMcMaster University · CAOspedaliera di Piacenza · ITRambam Health Care Campus · ILSechenov University · RUUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice shows that venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a substantial burden in medical patients, and awareness and advocacy for its primary and secondary prevention remains inadequate. Specific patient populations, such as those with cancer and the critically ill, show elevated risk for VTE, bleeding or both, and significant gaps in VTE prophylaxis and treatment exist in these groups.

objectiveTo present novel insights and consolidated evidence collected from experts, clinical practice guidelines and original studies on the unmet needs in thromboprophylaxis, and on the treatment of VTE in two high-risk patient groups: patients with cancer and the critically ill. METHODOLOGY: To identify specific unmet needs in the management of VTE, a methodology was designed and implemented that assessed gaps in prophylaxis and treatment of VTE through interviews with 44 experts in the field of thrombosis and haemostasis, and through a review of current guidelines and seminal studies to substantiate the insights provided by the experts. The research findings were then analysed, discussed and consolidated by a multidisciplinary group of experts.

resultsThe gap analysis methodology identified shortcomings in the VTE risk assessment tools, patient stratification approaches for prophylaxis, and the suboptimal use of anticoagulants for primary prophylaxis and treatment.

conclusionsSpecifically, patients with cancer need better VTE risk assessment tools to tailor primary thromboprophylaxis to tumour types and disease stages, and the potential for drug-drug interactions needs to be considered. In critically ill patients, unfractionated heparin is not advised as a first-line treatment option, and the strength of evidence is increasing for direct oral anticoagulants as a treatment option over low-molecular-weight heparins.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsCancerCritically illLow-molecular-weight heparinVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID31011294
PMCPMC6466798
OpenAlexW2945969122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.