ArticleCureus2023
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medical and Surgical Patients - What's Our Reality?
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should we focus on sustainable thromboprophylaxis and avoid overuse of low-molecular-weight heparins?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) includes pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in lower limbs, and thrombosis in rare locations. VTE is a common cardiovascular disease, being the leading preventable cause of in-hospital death. Both surgical and acute medical patients have an elevated risk of developing VTE. VTE risk assessment is essential to identify patients who might benefit from VTE prophylaxis accurately. Clinical data on risk factors and prophylaxis in Portugal are scarce. We aimed to determine the proportion of at-risk patients who received prophylaxis and the incidence of bleeding events. We also intended to study the rate of VTE in a cohort of medical and surgical patients during the hospitalization period and three months after discharge.
methodsDuring one week in 2020, adults admitted for more than 72hr to a medical or surgical ward were included. The study excluded patients with a diagnosis of VTE three months before hospitalization and who were either chronically receiving anticoagulation therapy or had started it 48 hours after admission. Risk assessments were based on the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) for medical patients and the Caprini Risk Assessment Model (CRAM) for surgical patients. We used CHEST guidelines, 9th edition, to determine the adequacy of the prophylactic method.
resultsA total of 123 patients were analyzed, 18.7% of which tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. VTE risk in surgical patients was categorized as very low or low (16.6%), moderate (37.5%), and high (43.8%), according to the CRAM. Risk in medical patients was categorized as low (60.0%) or high (40.0%) according to the PPS. We estimated that VTE chemoprophylaxis was overused in about 30.0% of patients vs. 7.0% who were at risk and did not receive appropriate chemoprophylaxis. The rate of thromboembolic events was 4.1% (n=5), 2 of which happened after discharge. Two of these patients were under VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. Major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients (n=3). DISCUSSION: A significant number of hospitalized patients are deemed to be at risk for VTE, making appropriate prophylaxis essential. The results emphasize the insufficient management of VTE 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.