ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology: A MITO-MaNGO Survey.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Post-discharge Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis after Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2026Review
- Current practices and challenges in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis: a survey of Italian oncologists.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer-associated thrombosis is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients, and its incidence has been increasing in recent years. This survey was aimed at gathering information regarding the management of thromboembolic prophylaxis within the MITO (Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer)-MaNGO (Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology) groups. We designed a self-administered, multiple-choice online questionnaire available only for MITO-MaNGO members for one month, starting in May 2022 and ending in June 2022. We processed one response form per center, and 50 responses were analyzed, with most of the respondents (78%) over 40 years old. We found that 82% of them consider thromboembolic prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology to be relevant. In 82% of the centers, a standardized protocol on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is used, which is applied to both patients undergoing surgery and those undergoing chemotherapy. In the remaining 18% of centers, prophylaxis is used exclusively for patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Prophylaxis of patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy treatment is managed in most cases by the surgeon (72%) and oncologist (76%), respectively. Only 26% of respondents use a thromboembolic risk assessment scale, and of these, those used are the Caprini Score (6%), Khorana Score (6%), and Wells Score (2%). The respondents have good knowledge of low-molecular-weight heparin (90%) and average knowledge of dicumarolics (40%), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (68%), and antiplatelet agents (40%). The results of our survey indicate that there is a good awareness of thromboembolic prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology. Nevertheless, it is used less in outpatients than in patients undergoing surgery. Moreover, the thromboembolic risk assessment scores are barely used.
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.