ReviewJB & JS open access
The Use of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Orthopaedic Surgery: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major complication following orthopaedic surgery, contributing to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices are widely used as a nonpharmacological prophylactic intervention, yet the evidence regarding their effectiveness remains varied across studies. Methods: An umbrella review of published meta-analyses was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Reviews comparing IPC devices to no prophylaxis, chemoprophylaxis, or combination regimens in orthopaedic surgery populations were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Data on DVT, PE, bleeding complications, and mortality were extracted. Study quality, overlap of primary studies, and reporting bias were evaluated. A meta-analysis of primary studies was performed. Results: IPC significantly reduced the risk of all DVT (odds ratio [OR] 0.40), proximal DVT (OR 0.58), distal DVT (OR 0.45), PE (OR 0.45), and bleeding complications (OR 0.57), with no effect on mortality. Subgroup analyses showed that IPC was effective across most surgery and intervention types, with particular benefit over aspirin and low molecular weight heparin. IPC alone performed comparably or better than chemoprophylaxis, especially for bleeding risk. Conclusion: IPC devices are effective in reducing the incidence of VTE and bleeding complications in patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures, with safety outcomes being more favorable compared with pharmacological agents. However, heterogeneity in existing evidence and methodological limitations highlight the need for standardized, high-quality randomized trials. These findings support the continued use of IPC, particularly in patients at high bleeding risk or when chemoprophylaxis is contraindicated. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.