ArticleCureus2026
Adherence to Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Guidelines in Medical Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of preventable morbidity and mortality among hospitalized medical patients. Despite the availability of validated risk assessment strategies and established prophylactic measures, variation in clinical practice persists, leading to both under- and over-utilisation of thromboprophylaxis. Methods A retrospective single-centre clinical audit was conducted over a two-month period at Letterkenny University Hospital, Ireland. Medical inpatients were reviewed 24 hours after admission. VTE risk was assessed using the Padua Prediction Score alongside bleeding risk evaluation. Prescribed pharmacological and mechanical thromboprophylaxis were compared with local hospital guidelines. Results A total of 100 patients were included (mean age 70.9 ± 19.1 years). Fifty-eight patients (58%) were classified as high VTE risk. Among high-risk patients, 37 (64%) received inappropriate prophylaxis. Among low-risk patients (n = 42), 24 (57.1%) were managed inappropriately, with unnecessary pharmacological prophylaxis being the most common reason for non-adherence. Contributing factors included undocumented weight, incorrect dose adjustment, and absence of documented VTE risk assessment. Conclusions Adherence to VTE prophylaxis guidelines was suboptimal, with both under- and over-prescription identified. Structured risk assessment tools and improved admission documentation may enhance compliance and patient safety.
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.