ArticleLaboratory medicine2017
Requirement for a Pathologist's Second Signature Limits Inappropriate Inpatient Thrombophilia Testing.
Article in Laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in patients in the acute care setting and an evaluation of the associated costs.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thromboembolism is a condition that leads to the hospitalization of thousands of patients in the United States annually. Recent guidelines suggest that testing for hereditary, acquired and combined forms of thrombophilia be delayed following hospitalization for a first-time acute thrombotic event. Instead, thrombophilia testing would be performed in an outpatient setting, at least 1 month after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy or 3 months after the thrombotic event, on the understanding that anticoagulation may affect some testing. Here, we provide our experience in instituting a system-wide policy change to limit thrombophilia testing in the inpatient setting. The policy change implemented led to a 90% reduction in number of tests ordered. We discuss the cost savings realized by limiting testing. These changes cost nothing to implement. Overall, limiting inpatient thrombophilia testing improves compliance with testing guidelines, provides better care for patients, and allows our institution to better utilize resources.
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.