SynthesisBMJ open2020
Intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboembolism prevention: a systematic review on factors affecting adherence.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intermittent pneumatic compression devices for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of venous thromboembolism mechanical prophylaxis devices during surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Management of Venous Thromboembolism After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- The Effect of Lower Limb Pressotherapy Treatment on Selected Rheological and Biochemical Indices of Blood in Young, Healthy Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Venous thromboembolism risk in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a hospital record-linkage study.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2024Article
- Prevention of venous thrombosis through intraoperative intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC): a best practice implementation project.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- A Review of the Preventive Strategies for Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients.Cureus · 2023Review
- Venous Thromboembolism in Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Added Effect of Disease Activity to Traditional Risk Factors.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2022Review
- SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Modulator of Pulmonary Embolism Paradigm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Post-discharge Thromboembolic Events in COVID-19 Patients: A Review on the Necessity for Prophylaxis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially fatal complication of hospitalisation. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is one approach to reducing the likelihood of a VTE. Adherence to IPC is known to be inadequate though the reasons for this remain unclear. This systematic review explores factors that affect adherence to IPC in the inpatient context.
methodsInformation sources-EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched for literature between January 1960 and May 2019. Eligibility criteria-studies were included if they focused on inpatient care and examined factors affecting adherence to IPC devices.
resultsIncluded studies-a total of 20 out of 1476 studies were included. Synthesis of results-eight factors were identified that affected adherence: patient discomfort (n=8), healthcare professionals' knowledge and behaviours (n=6), mobilisation (n=6), equipment supply and demand (n=3), the use of guidelines (n=3), intensive care context (n=2), computer-assisted prescribing (n=2) and patients' knowledge of IPC (n=1).
conclusionOverall while the evidence base is quite limited, a number of factors were shown to affect adherence to IPC. These findings could be used to inform future research and quality improvement efforts to increase adherence in this very important, but currently under-researched area.
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.