The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Systematic Review of Strategies to Improve Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitals
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Objective: To assess the effectiveness of different strategies for increasing the uptake of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients through a systematic review of the literature. Methods: Literature databases and the Internet were searched from 1996 to May 2003. Studies of strategies to improve VTE prophylaxis practice were included. Studies where no policy or guideline was implemented or where the focus of the study was not VTE prevention were excluded. Results: Thirty studies were included. The quality of the available evidence was average with the majority of studies being uncontrolled before and after design and thus limited by the historical nature of much of the available data. Adherence to guidelines and the provision of adequate prophylaxis were poor in studies which relied on passive dissemination of guidelines. In general, the use of multiple strategies was more effective than a single strategy used in isolation. The most effective strategies incorporated a system for reminding clinicians to assess patients for VTE risk, either electronic decision-support systems or paper-based reminders, and used audit and feedback to facilitate the iterative refinement of the intervention. There were no studies adequately powered to demonstrate a reduction in rates of VTE. Insufficient evidence was available to make useful comparisons of strategies in terms of costs and resource utilization. Conclusions: Passive dissemination of guidelines is unlikely to improve VTE prophylaxis practice. A number of active strategies used together, which incorporate some method for reminding clinicians to assess patients for DVT risk and assisting the selection of appropriate prophylaxis, are likely to result in the achievement of optimal outcomes. This paper reviewed strategies for improving the uptake of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical and surgical patients. A number of active strategies used together, incorporating a method for reminding clinicians to assess patients for risk of deep vein thrombosis, and assisting the selection of appropriate prophylaxis, are likely to result in the best outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kahn (2012) · doi:10.1378/chest.11-2296 · Cited by 2,693
Pai, M., Lloyd, N. S., Cheng, J., Thabane, L., Spencer, F. A., Cook, D. J., Haynes, R. B., Schünemann, H. J., & Douketis, J. D. (2013) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-1 · Cited by 376
Risk factors and clinical impact of postoperative symptomatic venous thromboembolism
Gangireddy, C., Rectenwald, J. R., Upchurch, G. R., Wakefield, T. W., Khuri, S., Henderson, W. G., & Henke, P. K. (2007) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2006.10.034 · Cited by 295
Lau, B. D., Arnaoutakis, G. J., Streiff, M. B., Howley, I. W., Poruk, K. E., Beaulieu, R., Ellison, T. A., Van Arendonk, K. J., Kraus, P. S., Hobson, D. B., et al. (2016) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000001512 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Tooher, R., Middleton, P., Pham, C., Fitridge, R., Rowe, S., Babidge, W., & Maddern, G.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 241
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 397-415
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023454447
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Systematic Review of Strategies to Improve Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000154120.96169.99
- The paper
- Tooher, R., Middleton, P., Pham, C., Fitridge, R., Rowe, S., Babidge, W., & Maddern, G. (2005). A Systematic Review of Strategies to Improve Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitals. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000154120.96169.99
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.