ArticleJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology2022
Implementing a Clinical Decision Tool to Improve Oncologic Venous Thromboembolism Management.
Article in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Background: Cancer patients with venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease are complex, and many factors must be considered when initiating anticoagulation management. Clinical decision support systems can aid in decision-making by utilizing guidelines at the point of care. Objectives: The purpose of our project was to develop, implement, and evaluate an electronic clinical decision tool (CDT) utilizing evidence-based guidelines to aid in decision-making for adult oncologic patients who present with new VTE to symptom care clinics. Methods: We compared a pre-intervention group of patients who were prescribed anticoagulation (n = 98) with two post-intervention groups: CDT applied (n = 96) and not applied (n = 46). Outcomes included whether the CDT anticoagulation recommendations were followed and if the tool was perceived to be helpful or improve confidence in initiating management for new VTE by the SCC advanced practitioners and physicians. Results: There was no significant difference between the pre- and post-intervention groups in how many of the CDT anticoagulation recommendations were followed (68.8% pre-intervention, 60.8% post-intervention tool applied, and 63.5% post-intervention tool not applied; χ Conclusion: This CDT provided evidence-based anticoagulation recommendations for cancer-associated VTE and enhanced familiarity with the standard of care. Further development of the CDT will be required to account for situations that resulted in deviation from the recommendations.
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.