ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluation of thrombophilia testing in the inpatient setting: A single institution retrospective review.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the Thrombophilia Panel: Real-World Overuse, Limited Interpretability, and Poor Guideline Concordance in a Hematology Referral Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical utility and costs of inpatient hereditary thrombophilia testing following acute VTE: A 5-Year retrospective study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Observational
- Multidisciplinary care of the pregnant patient with or at risk for venous thromboembolism: a recommended toolkit from the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders Thrombosis Subcommittee.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2023Article
- Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: Predictors and outcomes of guideline adherence in a long-term prospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
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
backgroundThrombophilia workup is typically inappropriate in the inpatient setting as testing may be skewed by anticoagulation, acute thrombosis, or acute illness.
objectiveTo determine adherence of inpatient thrombophilia testing with institutional guidelines. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective study to evaluate thrombophilia testing practices of adult patients who were admitted to Lehigh Valley Hospital at Cedar Crest with either venous thromboembolism or ischemic stroke in 2019. Testing included inherited and acquired thrombophilia. Patient charts were individually reviewed for three measured outcomes: 1) the number of appropriate thrombophilia testing in the inpatient setting; 2) the indications used for thrombophilia testing; 3) the proportion of positive thrombophilia tests with change in clinical management.
results201 patients were included in our study. 26 patients (13%) were tested appropriately in accordance with institution guidelines and 175 (87%) patients were tested inappropriately. The most common reason for the inappropriate testing was testing during acute thrombosis. 28 of the 201 patients had positive thrombophilia tests, but the reviewers only noted 7 patients with change in clinical management-involving anticoagulation change.
conclusionOur study revealed that a majority of inpatient thrombophilia testing did not follow institutional guidelines for appropriate testing and did not change patient management. These thrombophilia tests are often overutilized and have minimal clinical utility in the inpatient setting.
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.