ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Development of a Consensus-Based Cross-Domain Protocol for the Management of Elastic Compression Stocking Therapy in Patients With Deep Venous Thrombosis and Chronic Venous Disease: A Modified Delphi Study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Budget Impact of Three Improvement Targets for Compression Therapy for Patients with Deep Venous Thrombosis in The Netherlands.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Elastic compression stocking (ECS) therapy is commonly used in patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and chronic venous disease (CVD). The provision of ECS therapy is complex, and studies indicate a lack of practical guidance and suboptimal collaboration among health care professionals. We aimed to reach consensus on critical issues of ECS therapy among the involved health care professionals and patients. Methods: A three-round modified Delphi analysis was performed in the Netherlands in which 56 health care professionals (internists, dermatologists, general practitioners, emergency room nurses, home care nurses, medical stocking suppliers, and occupational therapists) and seven patients were invited. The 21 statements included in this analysis were based on information collected from a previously conducted Functional Resonance Analysis Method and Realist Evaluation. We used 7-point Likert scale questions and a 75% threshold for consensus. Results: Of the 63 persons invited for this study, 59 (94%) agreed to participate and responded in the first questionnaire round; of whom 52 were health care professionals and seven were patients (five DVT and two CVD). The overall response rate for the three questionnaire rounds was 91%. After completion of the rounds, full consensus was achieved on 19 out of 21 statements. No consensus was reached on the need for a follow-up appointment for CVD patients and who should be responsible to determine the ECS type (custom-made or standard). Conclusion: We identified 19 consensus-driven recommendations on treatment decisions and collaboration in ECS therapy among an interdisciplinary panel of health care professionals and patients. These recommendations form a basis for consensus-driven optimization of ECS therapy and should ideally be incorporated in a general cross-domain protocol for ECS therapy in patients with DVT and CVD.
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.