ArticleCureus2025
Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in General Surgery: A Closed Loop Clinical Audit of Risk Assessment and Prophylaxis Adherence.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Despite established guidelines for risk assessment and prophylaxis, adherence can vary.
methodsA two-cycle clinical audit was conducted on general surgery admissions at a district general hospital to assess adherence to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and local guidelines for VTE risk assessment, timely completion, and prescription of pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis. Cycle 1 audited patients between February 7, 2023 and February 18, 2023 (n=54) and Cycle 2 audited patients between July 10, 2023 and July 17, 2023 (n=57). Interventions included education and feedback after the first cycle.
resultsIn Cycle 1, 75.9% had a risk assessment completed at any time, and 53.7% within 24 hours. Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 81.5%, and 29.6% received mechanical prophylaxis. In Cycle 2, completion improved to 93%, with 59.6% completed within 24 hours. Pharmacological prophylaxis was prescribed appropriately in 100%, but only 25% received mechanical prophylaxis.
conclusionsThe audit demonstrated significant improvement in pharmacological VTE prophylaxis prescription and risk assessment completion following targeted interventions, but mechanical prophylaxis adherence decreased slightly and remains an area for improvement. Regular audits and sustained education are essential to maintain and enhance compliance.
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.