ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis is not supported following elective spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2025. 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.
- Should venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis be utilized following spinal fusions?-a systematic review and literature-based decision analysis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following spine surgery is not standardized. This study aims to compare the rates of VTE between patients receiving chemoprophylaxis Methods: A comprehensive investigation of searchable electronic databases was performed to capture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VTE chemoprophylaxis with no chemoprophylaxis after elective spine surgery. Two authors examined the eligibility, risk of bias and quality of studies using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted for risk of developing VTE, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), significant bleeding, and epidural hematoma. Results: After appraising 2,666 articles, eight RCTs were ultimately included in the analysis. These trials involved 1,509 patients, with 1,151 receiving VTE chemoprophylaxis and 358 not receiving it. No significant differences were found between the groups in the incidence of VTE [risk ratio (RR): 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97, 1.05; P=0.68] or DVT (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.06; P=0.11). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the risk of severe bleeding (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.05; P=0.59), significant bleeding (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.04; P=0.75), PE (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.03; P=0.81), or epidural hematoma (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.03; P>0.99) between the groups. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis did not find a statistically significant difference in the efficacy of routine use of VTE chemoprophylaxis following elective spine surgery with moderate-quality evidence. Future well-designed randomized trials with adequate power are still needed to assess the safety and efficacy of VTE chemoprophylaxis, especially considering the variability of surgical techniques in elective spine surgery.
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.