ArticleScientific reports2025
Effectiveness of aspirin in preventing deep vein thrombosis following proximal femoral fracture surgery in Japan.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Prediction of risk factors for preoperative deep vein thrombosis in patients with pelvic fracture.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Smart Thrombosis Care: The Rise of Closed-Loop Diagnosis-to-Treatment Nano Systems.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
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
Previous studies have shown that aspirin is effective as a prophylactic agent against venous thromboembolism (VTE) following proximal femoral fractures (PFF). In Japan, there is a lack of evidence regarding its efficacy and safety in this context. Consequently, aspirin is not covered by insurance for the prevention of venous thrombosis. This study aimed to investigate whether continued aspirin use in patients with PFF, who were already taking aspirin for cerebrovascular disease prevention before injury is effective as a prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We retrospectively analyzed PFF patients (≥ 65 years) who underwent postoperative duplex ultrasonography from January 2010 to December 2023.The study compared patients taking aspirin alone (aspirin group) and those not taking antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants (control group), matched by propensity scores. We enrolled 1064 patients while 161 (15%) were in the aspirin group. After matching, 128 patients were analyzed. DVT incidence was not statistically significant between the aspirin (54) and control groups (60) (OR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.49- 1.36; p = 0.44). Proximal DVT incidence was also similar (OR: 2; 95%CI: 0.50-7.00; p = 0.33). Additionally, since use of other postoperative antithrombotic prophylaxis (78%) is thought to have a significant impact on the incidence of DVT, a subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of aspirin in patients who did not receive postoperative antithrombotic prophylaxis. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in either DVT (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.55-3.42; p = 0.49) or proximal DVT (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 0.37-10.92; p = 0.42). This study demonstrates that aspirin is not effective for preventing VTE in patients with PFF in Japan.
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.