SynthesisPhlebology2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of venous thromboembolism risk in surgical patients with recent air travel.
Synthesis in Phlebology, 2026. 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
ObjectiveRisk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is classically associated with recent surgery; additionally, long-haul air travel is a known VTE risk factor. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the post-operative VTE risk associated with recent air travel.MethodsEmbase, Medline, Cochrane and Scopus databases were accessed from inception to May 2024. Inclusion criteria were any study design of participants undergoing surgical intervention with recent air travel, reporting VTE incidence. Papers were screened and data extracted independently by two reviewers, then pooled using fixed and random effects. The primary outcome was pooled VTE rate, with secondary outcomes of pooled rate of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Subgroup analyses of pre- and post-operative flight, flight >4 h and high VTE risk surgery were conducted. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias.ResultsSeven retrospective studies were included in the analysis, totalling 24,975 patients. The pooled VTE odds ratio (OR) in the flying plus surgery group was 1.96 (95% CI: 0.54-7.08). For surgery with post-operative flight, the VTE OR was 1.31 (95% CI: 0.63-2.71), whilst for surgery with pre-operative flight the OR was 7.86 (95% CI: 0.23-265.26). In a subgroup analysis of air travel >4 h, the VTE OR was 2.35 (95% CI: 0.29-19.36). In the subgroup analysis of high VTE risk surgery, the VTE OR was 1.20 (95% CI: 0.45-3.20). Three studies reported DVT/PE incidence specifically. For surgery and recent air travel, the pooled DVT rate was 0.67% (95% CI: 0.31%-1.51%) versus 0.45% (95% CI: 0.10%-2.00%) in surgery alone. For surgery and recent air travel, the pooled PE rate was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.00%-1.29%) versus 0.55% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.86%) for surgery alone.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that air travel confers no additional VTE risk for patients undergoing surgical intervention. However, this does not account for confounding factors. Future research should risk score then propensity match participants to generate higher quality evidence.
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.