ArticleBMJ open2025
Physician beliefs regarding venous thromboembolism prophylaxis at a large multihospital US healthcare system: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) contributes to hospitalisation-associated morbidity. Although guidelines recommend limiting VTE prophylaxis to high-risk patients, some physicians prescribe it broadly. We compared beliefs of low and high prescribing physicians.
methodsWe surveyed hospitalists and medical residents who had the opportunity to prescribe prophylaxis ≥50 times. Best-worst scaling was used to assess their beliefs. Using a balanced incomplete block design, we created seven choice tasks with seven statements regarding prophylaxis beliefs each presented four times. For each task, physicians selected the statement that most and least reflected their beliefs. We used a count method to calculate best-worst scores and a conditional logistic regression choice model to compare low and high prescribers.
resultsOf 434 invitees, 172 (40%) completed all survey questions between June and November 2023. Low (n=86, ≤62.5% prescribing rate) and high (n=86, >62.5 prescribing rate) prescribers endorsed similar beliefs with differing levels of agreement. All felt confident to prescribe prophylaxis appropriately (low: +1.13, high: +1.10, p=0.81). High prescribers expressed more concern about VTE without prophylaxis (+1.02 vs +0.65, p=0.002). Low prescribers disagreed more that prophylaxis had no downside (-1.03 vs -0.73, p=0.01). High prescribers worried less about prophylaxis risks (-0.49 vs -0.22, p=0.01), and overuse (-0.61 vs -0.34, p=0.02).
conclusionsCompared with low prescribers, high prescribers were more concerned about VTE without prophylaxis and less about harms. These differences in beliefs may underlie physician behaviour and could be targets for interventions to reduce inappropriate prophylaxis.
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.