ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2022
Improved utilisation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in renal-impaired patients following a clinical pharmacist intervention.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of pharmacists in quality management of venous thromboembolism: a retrospective, observational, single-center study in the cardiothoracic surgery department.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of pharmaceutical care services in the Middle East Countries: a review of studies of 2013-2020.BMC public health · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the role of the clinical pharmacist in improving venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis prescription in patients with renal impairment (RI).
methodsThis was an interventional cross-sectional study conducted in a nephrology ward. Patients' risk scores for VTE and bleeding during hospitalisation (evaluated by the Caprini Risk Assessment Model (RAM), Padua Prediction Score and IMPROVE Bleeding Risk Score, respectively), and the rate of VTE prophylaxis administration to patients, were evaluated before and after a clinical pharmacist's intervention.
resultsIn the pre-intervention phase, 34.8% of high-VTE-risk patients, of whom 12.5% were also at high risk of bleeding, received pharmacological prophylaxis. Moreover, 22.2% of low-VTE-risk patients received prophylaxis. In the intervention phase, prophylaxis was administered to all high-risk patients (mechanical prophylaxis in 7% of patients with a high risk of both VTE and bleeding, and heparin in the remainder) and to 3.3% of those at low risk of VTE.
conclusionsThe clinical pharmacist's intervention using RAMs can improve the rate of thrombosis prophylaxis prescription in patients with RI who have a high risk of VTE.
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.