Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32447745›Full record

ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2021

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification in general medical patients at an academic medical center.

Megan Kunka Fritz, Scott E Kincaid, Charles G Sargent, Amanda H Green, George A Davis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pulmonary embolism with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2021
    Review
  8. COPD and Anticoagulation Therapy: Time for a New Approach?International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Megan Kunka FritzPharmacy Department, University of Kentucky HealthCare, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536-0293, USA. megan.kunka@uky.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8150-0610
Scott E KincaidPharmacy Department, University of Kentucky HealthCare, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536-0293, USA.
Charles G SargentDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Kentucky HealthCare, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536-0293, USA.
Amanda H GreenDepartment of Nursing, University of Kentucky HealthCare, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536-0293, USA.
George A DavisPharmacy Department, University of Kentucky HealthCare, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536-0293, USA.
University of Kentucky HealthCare · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) is still a concern for general medical patients. Pharmacologic prophylaxis can reduce VTE incidence, but there is the potential for adverse effects. Therefore, determining which patients should receive VTE prophylaxis via risk scoring tools is essential. Limited evidence exists for the ideal venous thromboembolism risk assessment model (RAM) in hospitalized medical patients, as compared to other hospitalized patient subgroups such as surgical patients. The primary objective was to investigate the utilization and appropriateness of our institution-based VTE RAM and comparison to the Padua Prediction Score (PPS). This would allow for a gauge of provider risk assessment accuracy as well as appropriate predictive potential of the PPS or whether an alternative to the PPS should be considered. A total of 330 adult general medicine patients were included in this retrospective chart review. When compared to our institution-based VTE RAM, providers predominately stratified patients at a higher VTE risk than the institution-based VTE RAM. VTE incidence was 0.3%, which was lower than predicted. Significant discordance exists between providers' VTE risk assessment and that predicted by RAMs. Our institution-based VTE RAM appears comparable to PPS; however, it was not being utilized by providers, resulting in potentially unnecessary use of pharmacologic prophylaxis. The most appropriate venous thromboembolism risk assessment model for general medicine patients is undetermined. Our providers generally assess patients as moderate or high VTE risk, despite our institution-based RAM which typically recommends a lower risk category than provider selection. Because of provider risk assessment, more patients received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis than would have been recommended by the RAM, which might correlate to the low incidence of VTE which was < 0.5%, although bleeding complications were not assessed in this study. A prospective study utilizing the Padua Prediction Score (or similar RAM) in general medicine patients is warranted in order to decipher the best method of predicting VTE risk.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentAcademic Medical CentersAdultAgedAnticoagulantsFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsClassificationHeparinLow molecular weight heparinRisk factorsVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID32447745
OpenAlexW3028557858

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.