Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37851108›Full record

SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023

A systematic review of venous thromboembolism mechanical prophylaxis devices during surgery.

Brianna Herring, Darren Lowen, Prahlad Ho, Russell Hodgson

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. A Narrative Review on the Approach to Hospital-Acquired Venous Thromboembolism in Pediatric Trauma and Critically Ill ChildrenTurkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brianna HerringDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Epping, Australia.
Darren LowenDepartment of Anaesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, Northern Health, Epping, VIC, 3076, Australia.
Prahlad HoDepartment of Haematology, Northern Health, Epping, VIC, 3076, Australia.
Russell HodgsonDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Epping, Australia. russell.hodgson@nh.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4772-516X
The University of Melbourne · AUNorthern Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) are common mechanical prophylaxis devices used to prevent VTE. This review compares the safety and efficacy of IPC and GCS used singularly and in combination for surgical patients.

methodsOvid Medline and Pubmed were searched in a systematic review of the literature, and relevant articles were assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion along PRISMA guidelines.

resultsThis review is a narrative description and critical analysis of available evidence. Fourteen articles were included in this review after meeting the criteria. Results of seven studies comparing the efficacy of IPC versus GCS had high heterogeneity but overall suggested IPC was superior to GCS. A further seven studies compared the combination of IPC and GCS versus GCS alone, the results of which suggest that combination mechanical prophylaxis may be superior to GCS alone in high-risk patients. No studies compared combination therapy to IPC alone. IPC appeared to have a superior safety profile, although it had a worse compliance rate and the quality of evidence was poor. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis may make mechanical prophylaxis superfluous in the post-operative setting.

conclusionIPC may be superior to GCS when used as a single prophylactic device. A combination of IPC and GCS may be more efficacious than GCS alone for high-risk patients. Further high-quality research is needed focusing on clinical relevance, safety and comparing combination mechanical prophylaxis to IPC alone, particularly in high-risk surgical settings when pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated.

Indexed as

Venous ThromboembolismCombined Modality TherapyHumansIntermittent Pneumatic Compression DevicesRisk FactorsStockings, CompressionDeep vein thrombosisGraduated compression stockingsIntermittent pneumatic compressionMechanical prophylaxisPulmonary embolismVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID37851108
PMCPMC10584699
OpenAlexW4387728762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.