ArticlePeerJ2024
Remote care instruction
Article in PeerJ, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to estimate the effect of remote nursing guidance based on WeChat platform for female patients receiving subcutaneous anticoagulation during the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: Retrospective analysis of clinical data, including demographic data and anticoagulation complications, of 126 female patients who received subcutaneous anticoagulation therapy and received remote nursing guidance using WeChat platform in our hospital from January 2022 to December 2022. The Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) scale were used to evaluate patients' satisfaction with anticoagulation and quality of life at the beginning of anticoagulation, half a month after anticoagulation, and after three months of anticoagulation. Results: In total, 126 patients were involved in this study, all of them were female, 115 cases were natural pregnancy, 11 cases were assisted reproduction. This study included seven cases of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, 100 cases of hypercoagulable state, 10 cases of antiphospholipid syndrome, and eight cases of protein S deficiency, one case of hyperhomocysteinemia. During the follow-up period, four patients (3.17%) had subcutaneous injection complications, including three cases of subcutaneous hemorrhage and one case of liquid leakage. A total of 123 patients had completed the planned anticoagulation therapy or were receiving anticoagulation therapy as planned, and three patients did not receive anticoagulation therapy as planned (zero cases lost contact, two cases changed treatment units, and one case refused treatment). ACTS score (55.03 ± 1.73) and WHOQOL-BREF score (62.18 ± 3.17) after three months of anticoagulation, ACTS score (54.18 ± 1.20) and WHOQOL-BREF score (60.37 ± 2.25) after half a month of anticoagulation was significantly higher than the ACTS score (47.81 ± 1.69) and WHOQOL-BREF score (55.25 ± 1.85) at the beginning of anticoagulation, and the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, remote nursing instruction
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.