ArticleBMC cancer2026
Venous thromboembolism risk assessment and prophylaxis in cancer patients.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism is a potentially life-threatening condition, with patients having active malignancy at a 12-fold higher risk. Hospital-acquired VTE contributes to mortality, morbidity, and prolonged hospitalization. The 2024 British Society for Haematology guidelines recommend VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis within 24 h of admission. This audit evaluated adherence to these guidelines among oncology inpatients, aiming to identify gaps and opportunities for standardizing VTE management.
methodsA retrospective audit was conducted on 99 oncology inpatients. Electronic records, admission documentation, and drug charts were reviewed for VTE risk assessment completion and timing, prescription and appropriateness of pharmacological prophylaxis, 24-h reassessment, and adherence to cancer-associated thrombosis treatment standards. Patients with documented contraindications to anticoagulation were excluded from adherence analyses. Data were compared with BSH 2024 recommendations, and frequencies and percentages were calculated.
resultsVTE risk assessment was documented in 64.6% (n = 64) of patients, while 35.4% (n = 35) had no recorded assessment or reassessment. Among assessed patients, 57.8% (n = 37) were high risk, 28.1% (n = 18) low risk, and 14.1% (n = 9) high bleeding risk. Pharmacological prophylaxis was prescribed in 71.7% (n = 71) of patients, initiated within 14 h in 36.6% (n = 26), and appropriately selected in 88.5% (n = 23) of those receiving timely prophylaxis. Reassessment within 24 h occurred in 12.1% (n = 12) of patients. Hospital-acquired thrombosis was identified in 6.1% (n = 6) of patients, with prophylaxis adherence varying across services: 71.0% (n = 71) in medical oncology, 26.2% (n = 26) in surgical oncology, and 11.1% (n = 11) in myeloma pathways. Catheter-related thrombosis prevention was documented in 4.0% (n = 4). For CAT management, 69.6% (n = 69) received anticoagulation during the first six months and continued beyond six months if the malignancy remained active. Recurrent VTE occurred in 22.2% (n = 22) of patients receiving complete treatment.
conclusionClinical practice in this oncology department largely aligns with BSH 2024 recommendations; however, documentation is inconsistent and incomplete. Standardized electronic templates, mandatory assessment fields, clarified myeloma pathways, and targeted staff education may improve adherence. A follow-up re-audit is recommended to evaluate progress and reinforce guideline implementation.
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.