ArticlePublic health challenges2026
Assessment of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Among Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units in Dhaka City: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Public health challenges, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite recognized evidence that venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and preventable complication in critically ill patients with pulmonary embolism as the most preventable cause of in-hospital death, we assessed VTE risk and prophylaxis use in ICU patients from Dhaka City. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from January to June 2018 in two tertiary care hospitals of Dhaka. We prospectively included 130 patients with ICU admission for ≥24 h. The Padua risk assessment model (RAM) was used to assess VTE risk and patients with a score of ≥4 were classified as high risk. Chi-square tests and Student's Results: High-risk status was significantly associated with advancing age and specific clinical predictors. Strong predictors for high-risk status included thrombophilia, immobilization and active malignancy. Despite high-risk status, only 28.57% received prophylaxis. Clinicians preferentially administered prophylaxis to elderly patients and those with acute infections, while overlooking predictors like malignancy. The overall in-hospital mortality was 15.4%. Conclusion: Nearly half of ICU patients are at high risk for VTE, yet prophylaxis utilization remains inadequate. Systematic implementation of mandatory risk assessment protocols is essential to bridge this clinical gap. Clinical Trial Registration: This study is a cross-sectional observational study involving no experimental intervention, treatment allocation or clinical trial procedures. Accordingly, clinical trial registration was not required or applicable for this study design.
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.