Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31388853›Full record

ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2020

Appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in patients in the acute care setting and an evaluation of the associated costs.

Riddhi Virparia, Luigi Brunetti, Stuart Vigdor, Christopher D Adams

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Genes · 2025
    Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Riddhi VirpariaErnest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA. riddhivirparia@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4491-4157
Luigi BrunettiDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Stuart VigdorRobert Wood Johnson University Hospital Somerset, RWJBarnabas Health, Somerville, NJ, USA.
Christopher D AdamsDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USSomerset Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thrombophilia testing is rarely recommended in acute care settings due to the high likelihood of false-positive and false-negative results. Inappropriately performing these tests in the acute care setting is associated with inaccurate interpretation and an increased economic burden. In this retrospective analysis, the appropriateness of thrombophilia tests ordered for patients in an acute care setting was evaluated in terms of both clinical utility and economic costs. This analysis included adult inpatients discharged from an academic community medical center from November 1, 2016 to November 1, 2017 who received thrombophilia testing. Patients were stratified into two groups: appropriately tested and inappropriately tested based on data abstracted directly from the electronic health record. The primary outcome, the appropriateness of the tests, was based on published criteria for thrombophilia testing and included concurrent anticoagulation use, patient admitting diagnosis, and/or comorbidities associated with thrombosis risk. The secondary endpoint was the financial burden of inappropriate thrombophilia testing based on assay charges. The analytic sample included 200 patients and 1393 thrombophilia tests. In 179 patients (89.5%), 1168 tests (83.8%) were inappropriately conducted. From 179 patients, tests in 85 were inappropriate due to concurrent anticoagulant use and/or provoked venous thromboembolism (VTE), and tests in 94 were inappropriate due to a lack of 2 or more risk factors for thrombophilia. Only 21 patients (10.5%) had appropriate testing with 225 tests (16.2%). The financial impact of inappropriate testing was estimated as excess charges amounting to $148,151.16/year. Restricting testing to avoid unnecessary risks and costs warrants further analysis.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsThrombophiliaAcademic Medical CentersAdultAgedCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsAnticoagulationRecurrent thromboembolismThrombophilia testingThrombosis risk

Identifiers

PMID31388853
OpenAlexW2964871544

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.