ArticleCureus2021
Comparison of Chemical and Mechanical Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism in Non-surgical Mechanically Ventilated Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation dose reduction for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in low body weight patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Thrombosis journal · 2025Review
- Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolism in Intensive Care Units: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy Compared to Conventional Mechanical Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in The Intensive Care Unit - Rationale and Design for The SOPHIE Trial.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the efficacy of mechanical and chemical prophylaxis in non-surgically mechanically ventilated patients in terms of reduction in mortality and length of hospital stay. A total of 200 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) were recruited retrospectively. Half participants received mechanical prophylaxis and half received chemical prophylaxis. Patients with medical diseases with age 18 years or above, both genders, Pakistani nationals, receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours or receiving subcutaneous low molecular weight (LMW) heparin or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin were included. Cases who undergone surgery and were then admitted to ICU, those who received both mechanical and chemical therapies, and patients who received anticoagulant treatment before admission to ICU were excluded from the study. The patient's age, gender, length of stay in ICU, and mortality were recorded in each group. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data and Student t-test for continuous variables. The mean age was 55.51±8.37 years. The males were 108(54%) and females were 92(46%). The mortality rate was higher in the mechanical prophylaxis group (49%) than chemical (31%) statistically significantly (P=0.014). Similarly, the length of hospital stay was also higher in the mechanical prophylaxis group (7.27±0.897 days) than chemical (6.67±1.045) statistically (P<0.001). Chemical prophylaxis can reduce mortality and length of hospital stay more effectively than mechanical prophylaxis in ICUs admitted patients.
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.