ArticleCureus2026
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Emergency General Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Timeliness, Prescribing, and Administration.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable cause of hospital-associated morbidity and mortality. In emergency general surgery, timely prophylaxis can be challenging because decisions regarding bleeding risk and urgent procedures must be balanced against the need for prompt pharmacological prophylaxis. This study quantified time to first pharmacological prophylaxis and compared VTE prevention processes across two sequential emergency general surgery cohorts. Methods We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort study of adult emergency general surgical admissions across two predefined inpatient cohorts assessed approximately one month apart and separated by implementation of a targeted thromboprophylaxis practice change. Patient-level electronic prescribing and medication-administration records were used to measure time from admission to first low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) administration among patients for whom pharmacological prophylaxis was appropriate and a first administration time was assessable, and to evaluate VTE risk assessment, dose appropriateness, mechanical prophylaxis, and other process measures. Duplicate carry-over records, an elective admission, and records predating the implementation cutoff were excluded from the primary comparison. Categorical outcomes were compared using Fisher's exact test and continuous variables using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results Seventy-two emergency admissions were included (42 in the earlier cohort and 30 in the later cohort). Among patients with an assessable first LMWH administration time, the median admission-to-first-LMWH interval decreased from 20.8 hours (IQR: 13.9-27.9) to 16.4 hours (IQR: 10.5-21.5; p = 0.120), while administration within 14 hours increased from 8/32 (25.0%) to 9/24 (37.5%; p = 0.384). Correct completion of the electronic VTE risk-factor form increased from 8/42 (19.0%) to 26/30 (86.7%), an absolute increase of 67.6 percentage points (95% CI: 50.6-84.6; p < 0.001). Mechanical prophylaxis prescribing increased from 33/42 (78.6%) to 30/30 (100%; p = 0.008). Overall composite compliance did not change significantly. Conclusions In this retrospective cohort study, time to first LMWH administration improved numerically but remained frequently beyond the 14-hour threshold. Electronic VTE risk documentation and mechanical prophylaxis prescribing improved substantially in the later cohort. The findings identify a persistent gap between VTE assessment and timely pharmacological prophylaxis, highlighting medication-delivery processes as an important area for further evaluation and quality improvement in emergency general surgery.
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.