ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Use of a Risk Assessment Model for Venous Thromboembolism Is Associated with Decreased Prophylaxis.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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.
- Should we focus on sustainable thromboprophylaxis and avoid overuse of low-molecular-weight heparins?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is often overprescribed to patients at low risk for VTE. Whether risk assessment models (RAMs) reduce prescribing to low-risk patients is unknown. We incorporated a validated RAM into admission order sets to help physicians determine risk of VTE.
objectiveTo quantify RAM use, determine its association with prophylaxis, and identify patient factors associated with concordance between calculated VTE risk and prophylaxis use. We hypothesized that use of the RAM would be associated with less prophylaxis.
designCross-sectional study. We excluded surgical, COVID, and intensive care unit patients, and patients with contraindication to prophylaxis or already on anticoagulation.
participantsMedical inpatients aged ≥18 years admitted to 10 US hospitals from December 2020 to March 2023.
interventionsPhysician RAM use. MAIN MEASURES: Physician prophylaxis prescription and patient characteristics. KEY
resultsAmong 131,441 patient encounters, RAM use varied across hospitals from 54 to 99%. Overall, physician ordering was concordant with the RAM's recommendation for 68% of patients. Prophylaxis prescription was less common when the RAM was used than when it was not (44% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). When calculated risk was high (i.e., >0.75%), 96% of patients had prophylaxis prescribed versus 37% when risk was low. Across hospitals, prophylaxis prescription rates varied more for low-risk (21 to 77%) than for high-risk patients (87 to 98%). Among low-risk patients, prophylaxis was associated with male sex, older age, reduced mobility, and history of DVT, stroke, heart or respiratory failure, or active cancer.
conclusionsUse of the RAM was associated with reduced prophylaxis prescribing, but many low-risk patients still received prophylaxis, especially if they had a risk factor for VTE. Physicians appear to agree with high-risk assessments but are less comfortable not prescribing prophylaxis to patients at low risk.
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.