ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2021
An international survey of clinicians regarding their management of venous thromboembolism following the initial 3-6 months of anticoagulation.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practice patterns of pulmonologists regarding extended anticoagulation therapy after pulmonary embolism.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Current Antithrombotic Treatments for Cardiovascular Diseases: A Comprehensive Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Long-Term Management of Pulmonary Embolism: A Review of Consequences, Treatment, and Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- Utility of a recurrence prediction tool (DASH score) at a single centre after unprovoked venous thromboembolism: patient uptake of the tool and short term risks of stopping anticoagulation.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After an initial treatment period for venous thromboembolism (VTE), indefinite anticoagulation may be considered, depending upon individual risks. The aim of the study was to determine if there is consensus amongst clinicians that manage VTE regarding which patients require 3-6 months versus indefinite anticoagulation. The importance of VTE site and severity in decision making was also evaluated. An international survey of clinicians involved in VTE management was undertaken. Respondents were asked about long-term treatment of six patients that had completed 3-6 months initial anticoagulation. These included four cases of VTE not associated with a major reversible risk factor and two control cases; one unprovoked VTE and one VTE associated with a major reversible risk factor. For consensus, there was a pre-defined equivalence boundary whereby at least 70% of clinicians had to decide either to stop or consider indefinite anticoagulation for each case. 351 responses were collected. In the control cases, there was a ≥ 95% consensus on long-term management (stop versus indefinite anticoagulation). In three of the four test cases, there was no consensus about duration of anticoagulation. In case 3, 78% (99% confidence interval 73-84%) would stop anticoagulation after 3-6 months. When analysed by grade or specialty of doctor, a lack of consensus remained. Opinion on whether site or severity of VTE influenced decision making was variable. For patients with unprovoked VTE or VTE associated with a major transient risk factor there is treatment consensus. For the remainder, there is a lack consensus regarding the need for indefinite anticoagulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32592081What 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.