SynthesisANZ journal of surgery2022
Efficacy of intermittent compression devices for thromboembolic prophylaxis in major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- WHO Safe Surgery Checklist for Cesarean Section (CS) Delivery: Practice and Associated Factors Among Physicians in Rwanda.Public health challenges · 2025Article
- Article
- Venous thromboembolic prophylaxis: current practice of surgeons in Australia and New Zealand for major abdominal surgery.BMC surgery · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of mechanical prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in abdominal and pelvic surgery are uncertain, with different guidelines stating that graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs) can be used either alone or in combination. To review the efficacy of IPCDs in preventing VTE following abdominal and pelvic surgery.
methodsA systematic review was conducted, identifying relevant literature reporting clinical trials conducted in abdominopelvic surgery, comparing the effect of IPCDs alone or in combination with no prophylaxis, GCS and chemical prophylaxis. The review identified studies reported from 1966 to 2022 in Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials.
resultsThirteen RCTs involving 1914 participants were identified. IPCDs were superior to placebo (OR VTE 0.39; 95% CI 0.20-0.76) but not superior to other forms of prophylaxis (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.30-2.27) or to GCS alone (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.24-3.36). The addition of IPCDs to GCS compared with GCS alone was beneficial (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.91) as was the addition of IPCDs to standard perioperative chemoprophylaxis (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.09-0.74). The overall quality and reliability of trials were low, with high risk of bias.
conclusionsIPCDs are more effective than placebo in reducing VTE rates but are not more effective than other forms of thrombo-prophylaxis (chemical or mechanical) following abdominal and pelvic surgery. There is poor quality evidence to suggest that they might have a role as additional prophylaxis when combined with GCS and chemical prophylaxis.
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.