Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34640311›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

A Review of Current and Future Antithrombotic Strategies in Surgical Patients-Leaving the Graduated Compression Stockings Behind?

Amulya Khatri, Matthew Machin, Aditya Vijay, Safa Salim, Joseph Shalhoub, Alun Huw Davies

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-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

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

  1. Outcomes of cochlear implantation in Usher syndrome: a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amulya KhatriAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London W6 8RF, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3675-5304
Matthew MachinAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London W6 8RF, UK.
Aditya VijayAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London W6 8RF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7642-7076
Safa SalimAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London W6 8RF, UK.
Joseph ShalhoubAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London W6 8RF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1011-7440
Alun Huw DaviesAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London W6 8RF, UK.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains an important consideration within surgery, with recent evidence looking to refine clinical guidance. This review provides a contemporary update of existing clinical evidence for antithrombotic regimens for surgical patients, providing future directions for prophylaxis regimens and research. For moderate to high VTE risk patients, existing evidence supports the use of heparins for prophylaxis. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been validated within orthopaedic surgery, although there remain few completed randomised controlled trials in other surgical specialties. Recent trials have also cast doubt on the efficacy of mechanical prophylaxis, especially when adjuvant to pharmacological prophylaxis. Despite the ongoing uncertainty in higher VTE risk patients, there remains a lack of evidence for mechanical prophylaxis in low VTE risk patients, with a recent systematic search failing to identify high-quality evidence. Future research on rigorously developed and validated risk assessment models will allow the better stratification of patients for clinical and academic use. Mechanical prophylaxis' role in modern practice remains uncertain, requiring high-quality trials to investigate select populations in which it may hold benefit and to explore whether intermittent pneumatic compression is more effective. The validation of DOACs and aspirin in wider specialties may permit pharmacological thromboprophylactic regimens that are easier to administer.

Indexed as

anti-coagulantsanti-plateletsantithromboticsatrial fibrillationbleeding risk managementcardiovascular diseaseischaemic heart diseasethromboembolic risk preventionvenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID34640311
PMCPMC8509226
OpenAlexW3202659121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.