ArticleBlood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis2025
Surveying patients' experiences and perspectives on venous thromboembolism: gaps and opportunities in health delivery.
Article in Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient Satisfaction with Anticoagulation for Venous Thromboembolic Disease: A Systematic Review of Oral and Parenteral Regiments.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- An international survey of clinician recommendations for physical activity after venous thromboembolism.Thrombosis research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient experience is an independent dimension of health care delivery. We aimed to capture patients' experiences with venous thromboembolism (VTE) to improve health care delivery. A survey was developed by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians and patient advocates. Domains included patient demographics, health care experiences, perspectives, and potential gaps in health care received for VTE. The survey was distributed electronically between May and July 2023 through a patient advocacy group targeting individuals with a personal VTE history. The primary outcome was a binary indicator of patient satisfaction with how their VTE diagnosis was explained. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with satisfaction. Of 1050 participants, the majority were from the United States (81%). Most respondents were female (81%) and White (88%), and 71% were aged between 40 and 69 years. Satisfaction with clinician explanation of VTE diagnosis was reported in 55% of participants. The likelihood of satisfaction increased as the time spent with a clinician at diagnosis increased (relative to <5 minutes, risk ratio (RR) of 1.65 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.02] for 6-10 minutes to RR of 2.44 [95% CI 1.92-3.10] for 31-60 minutes). Factors associated with decreased likelihood of satisfaction included multiple visits to obtain VTE diagnosis (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) and not being given information at the time of diagnosis (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79). From this large international survey designed to capture patient experiences and gaps in VTE care delivery, we identified several areas for improvement. Specifically, enhancing patient education and spending more time with patients at diagnosis are opportunities to improve patient satisfaction with VTE care.
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.