ArticleJornal vascular brasileiro2023
Adequacy of venous thromboembolism risk stratification and prophylaxis in a tertiary university hospital.
Article in Jornal vascular brasileiro, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Venous thromboembolism is the third most common cardiovascular disease and the main cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients. Prophylaxis is still underused, despite well-established guidelines in the literature. Studies show a worldwide prophylaxis adequacy rate close to 50%. Objectives: To assess the adequacy of risk stratification and prophylactic measures for venous thromboembolism in a tertiary university hospital. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was carried out, collecting data from medical records. Adult patients hospitalized by different specialties were enrolled and divided into surgical and clinical groups. The risk stratification of venous thromboembolism performed by the attending physicians was compared with stratification based on recent guidelines performed by the research physicians. Prophylaxis measures prescribed by the attending physicians were compared with guideline recommendations, thus obtaining the prophylaxis adequacy rate. Results: 400 patients were analyzed, 169 (42.3%) surgical and 231 (57.7%) clinical. The overall stratification adequacy rate was 50.8%. Adequacy rates were 39.1% and 59.3% in the surgical and clinical groups respectively (P < 0.0001). The overall prophylaxis adequacy rate was 71.5%, with 78.1% in the surgical group and 66.7% in the clinical group (P=0.0137). Conclusions: Risk stratification adequacy is low, demonstrating a low awareness among prescribing physicians of the need for adequate stratification for prescription of prophylaxis. However, the prophylaxis prescription adequacy rates are higher than those in global data.
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.