Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stratified Meta-Analysis of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression of the Lower Limbs to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients

Open access
Ho, Kwok M., Tan, Jen Aik·2013·Circulation

Abstract

Background—: Optimal thromboprophylaxis for patients at risk of bleeding remains uncertain. This meta-analysis assessed whether intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) of the lower limbs was effective in reducing venous thromboembolism and whether combining pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with IPC would enhance its effectiveness. Methods and Results—: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trial register (1966—February 2013) for randomized, controlled trials and assessed the outcomes and quality of the trials independently. Trials comparing IPC with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, thromboembolic deterrent stockings, no prophylaxis, and a combination of IPC and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis were considered. Trials that used IPC <24 hours or compared different types of IPC were excluded. A total of 16 164 hospitalized patients from 70 trials met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to meta-analysis. IPC was more effective than no IPC prophylaxis in reducing deep vein thrombosis (7.3% versus 16.7%; absolute risk reduction, 9.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9–10.9; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.36–0.52; P <0.01; I 2 =34%) and pulmonary embolism (1.2% versus 2.8%; absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9–2.3; relative risk, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33–0.69; P <0.01; I 2 =0%). IPC was also more effective than thromboembolic deterrent stockings in reducing deep vein thrombosis and appeared to be as effective as pharmacological thromboprophylaxis but with a reduced risk of bleeding (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25–0.65; P <0.01; I 2 =0%). Adding pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to IPC further reduced the risk of deep vein thrombosis (relative risk, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P =0.02; I 2 =0%) compared with IPC alone. Conclusions—: IPC was effective in reducing venous thromboembolism, and combining pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with IPC was more effective than using IPC alone.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.113.002690

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Ho, K. M., & Tan, J. A.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2013-08-27
Volume
128
Issue
9
Pages
1003-1020
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2106010069
Cited by
222
References
1
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Stratified Meta-Analysis of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression of the Lower Limbs to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.113.002690
The paper
Ho, K. M., & Tan, J. A. (2013). Stratified Meta-Analysis of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression of the Lower Limbs to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.113.002690

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.