Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32574367›Full record

ArticleBlood advances2020

Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in adult patients undergoing neurosurgical interventions for preventing venous thromboembolism.

Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Anita Rajasekhar, Maryam Rahman, Philipp Dahm, David R Anderson, Luis Enrique Colunga-Lozano, Stephanie Ross, Meha Bhatt, Kelly Estrada Orozco, Federico Popoff and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Blood advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

19 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Juan José Yepes-NuñezDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Anita RajasekharDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, and.
Maryam RahmanLillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Philipp DahmUrology Section 112D, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
David R AndersonDepartment of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Luis Enrique Colunga-LozanoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Stephanie RossCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Meha BhattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kelly Estrada OrozcoClinical Research Institute, National University of Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
Federico PopoffPrograma de Medicina Basada en Pruebas, Servicio de Clínica Médica, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina; and.
Matthew VentrescaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Angela M BarbaraDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sara BalduzziDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Housne BegumDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Arnav AgarwalDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Wojtek WierciochDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Robby NieuwlaatDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Gian Paolo MorganoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Impact · CACanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health · CACochrane · CADalhousie University · CAHospital Alemán · ARUniversidad de Los Andes · COUniversidad Nacional de Colombia · COUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

Leveraging Temozolomide to Improve Treatment Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Blockade in GlioblastomaK08NS099484 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI RAHMAN, MARYAM · 2017 to 2021
$1.1M
NINDS NIH HHS K08 NS099484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention remains uncertain. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic compared with nonpharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. Three databases were searched through April 2018, including those for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and for nonrandomized controlled studies (NRSs). Independent reviewers assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seven RCTs and 3 NRSs proved eligible. No studies reported on symptomatic proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Two RCTs reported on screening-detected proximal and distal DVTs. We used the findings of these 2 RCTs as the closest surrogate outcomes to inform the proximal and distal DVT outcomes. These 2 RCTs suggest that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may decrease the risk of developing asymptomatic proximal DVT (relative risk [RR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.84; low certainty). Findings were uncertain for mortality (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.57-2.86; low certainty), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.03-27.42; very low certainty), asymptomatic distal DVT (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.08; very low certainty), and reoperation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-2.84; very low certainty) outcomes. NRSs also reported uncertain findings for whether pharmacologic prophylaxis affects mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.13; low certainty) and PE (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.01-3.76). For risk of bleeding, findings were uncertain in both RCTs (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.70-3.50; low certainty) and NRSs (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.30-7.12; very low certainty). In patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures, low certainty of evidence suggests that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis confers benefit for preventing asymptomatic (screening-detected) proximal DVT with very low certainty regarding its impact on patient-important outcomes.

Indexed as

Pulmonary EmbolismVenous ThromboembolismVenous ThrombosisAdultAnticoagulantsHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresAnticoagulants

Identifiers

PMID32574367
PMCPMC7322965
OpenAlexW3036970379

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.