Observational studyVascular health and risk management2022
VTE Prophylaxis Therapy: Clinical Practice vs Clinical Guidelines.
Observational study in Vascular health and risk management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thromboprophylaxis utilization rate and associated factors among patients attending the emergency department of tertiary care hospitals in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia: a multicentre prospective study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- A nomogram for predicting hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Benefits and Imperative of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Screening for Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Evaluation of Proton Pump Inhibitors Prescribing Among Hospitalized Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Commentary and Critique to "VTE Prophylaxis Therapy: Clinical Practice vs Clinical Guidelines" by Abukhalil et al [Letter].Vascular health and risk management · 2022Article
- Response to Commentary and Critique to "VTE Prophylaxis Therapy: Clinical Practice vs Clinical Guidelines" by Abukhalil et al [Response to Letter].Vascular health and risk management · 2022Article
- External Validation of the Risk Assessment Model of Venous Thromboembolism in Multicenter Internal Medicine Inpatients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most preventable complication in hospitalized patients. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the adherence of current clinical practice to the established guidelines at a Palestinian teaching hospital. Methods: This cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study was conducted at a Palestinian Teaching Hospital. The medical records of patients admitted to the medical floor over 18 years of age and hospitalized for longer than 24 hours between January 1 and May 31, 2019, were included. Patients taking anticoagulants with incomplete or duplicated medical records were excluded from the study. A data collection sheet was developed, and clotting and bleeding risks were assessed using the Padua and IMPROVE risk assessment models (scores). The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 25). Results: In total, 408 patients were included in the study, 222 of whom received thromboprophylaxis (54.4%). Of the hospitalized patients, 112 (27.5%) had a high risk of developing VTE (Padua score ≥ 4), and 73 patients were eligible for VTE pharmacological prophylaxis; however, only 44 (60.3%) received the appropriate prophylaxis. In addition, 296 patients had low Padua scores, indicating that pharmacological prophylaxis was not indicated. However, 144 (48.6%) patients received prophylaxis. The mean Padua and IMPROVE risk scores were 2.25 ± 2.08 and 4.44 ± 2.72, respectively. Among the patients, 17.6% had a high risk of bleeding (IMPROVE score ≥ 7). Conclusion: VTE prophylaxis among hospitalized medically ill patients was mostly inappropriate; 80.18% of the patients received inappropriate prophylaxis, and only 60.3% of eligible patients received appropriate prophylaxis. Adapting assessment models or checklists in clinical practice based on clinical guidelines for VTE risk stratification is a practical and effective method to improve VTE prophylaxis management and select the appropriate therapy to prevent toxicity or complication.
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.