ArticleCureus2024
Adequacy of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment and Prophylaxis After Gastrointestinal Surgery in a Sudanese Teaching Hospital: A Prospective Audit.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a condition that occurs when a blood clot forms in a vein. VTE includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Regular monitoring and risk assessment are crucial for effectively using VTE prevention measures. This study aimed to evaluate the practices related to VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis within our surgical unit in a Sudanese teaching hospital. Methods This study was conducted at Alnao teaching hospital and was comprised of two cycles. It examined adult patients who underwent gastrointestinal operations. Data from medical records including age, sex, type of operation, whether VTE and bleeding risk assessments were performed, whether pharmacological or mechanical prophylaxis was administered, and any contraindications to VTE prophylaxis. The practice of VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis prescription was compared to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis. Following cycle one, regular educational sessions were conducted for medical staff, emphasizing the need for improved practices in assessing the risk of VTE and prophylaxis prescription. Results 32 patients in cycle one and 29 patients in cycle two were included. VTE and bleeding risks were assessed in 0/32 (0.00%) of patients in cycle one compared to 29/29 (100%) in cycle two. In cycle one, 0/32 (0.00%) patients were given VTE prophylaxis according to the guidelines. This practice improved to 17/29 (58.6%) in cycle two. Conclusion The audit highlights the role of organized methods and education in improving adherence to VTE prophylaxis guidelines. Targeted interventions like educational sessions and risk assessment tools led to significant practice improvements, particularly in low-resource settings. Continuous auditing and training are essential for maintaining and enhancing compliance with VTE prophylaxis standards.
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.