ArticleCureus2025
The Necessity to Provide an Informed Choice Regarding Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis: A Single-Centre Study Observing Clinician Adherence and Opinions on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is a critical patient safety measure used in hospitals to prevent venous thromboembolic events. These are often done via nonpharmacological methods, such as anti-embolic (TED™) stockings, or with pharmacological methods, such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), which consists of medications such as dalteparin. The synthesis of said medications is derived from bovine or ovine products, thus posing ethical and cultural concerns for those with dietary or religious restrictions. Fondaparinux sodium, a fully synthetic alternative, offers a non-animal-derived option, yet its use remains limited. Aims The aim of this study is to explore if those who express a preference for non-animal-derived products are appropriately prescribed fondaparinux, and to educate clinicians on the animal-derived LMWHs with the ability to provide suitable alternatives. Methodology A retrospective cohort study was conducted over a seven-week period at Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan, United Kingdom, from 16/05/25 to 07/07/25. Data were collected from patients who had expressed dietary or religious restrictions regarding animal-derived products and who were prescribed VTE prophylaxis. A secondary survey assessed prescribing clinicians' knowledge of LMWH derivatives and fondaparinux as an alternative. Results Of the 27 newly admitted patients who expressed a preference for non-animal-derived products over the seven-week period, 23 (85%) of these received VTE prophylaxis in the form of LMWH, with four (15%) receiving fondaparinux as a suitable alternative. Amongst the 24 prescribers surveyed, 12 (50%) knew LMWHs were animal-derived, with 14 prescribers (58.3%) aware of fondaparinux as a synthetic alternative. Despite this, 21 (87.5%) agreed that patients should be informed if medications contain animal-derived ingredients, with 22 (91.7%) supporting informed patient choice. Conclusion The use of VTE in a hospital setting is an imperative safety strategy and is used amongst a plethora of specialities. Those patients with expressed preferences for non-animal-derived products had unfortunately received the first-line LMWH prophylaxis, which can be due to either clinicians not having the knowledge that LMWH has animal derivatives, or that there is a suitable alternative to LMWHs. This demonstrates a clear health inequality. Educational initiatives and institutional protocols are recommended to promote patient-centred care and ensure ethical prescribing consistent with individual values.
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.