Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38476084›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research.

Sarah Davis, Abdullah Pandor, Fiona C Sampson, Jean Hamilton, Catherine Nelson-Piercy, Beverley J Hunt, Jahnavi Daru, Steve Goodacre, Rosie Carser, Gill Rooney and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah DavisSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6609-4287
Abdullah PandorSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2552-5260
Fiona C SampsonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2321-0302
Jean HamiltonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3326-9842
Catherine Nelson-PiercyWomen's Health Academic Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9311-1196
Beverley J HuntHaematology and Pathology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4709-0774
Jahnavi DaruInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5816-2609
Steve GoodacreSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0803-8444
Rosie CarserPatient and Public Involvement, Thrombosis UK, Llanwrda, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1456-868X
Gill RooneySchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8388-9444
Mark ClowesSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5582-9946
University of Sheffield · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBThrombosis Research Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the 6 weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom's current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. Objectives: To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, while being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood-thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. Results: The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0% to 100% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. Limitations: The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. Conclusions: Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020221094. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131021) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisPostpartum PeriodVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansPregnancyQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRisk AssessmentUnited KingdomAnticoagulantsECONOMIC EVALUATIONPREGNANCYPUERPERIUMRISK FACTORSTHROMBOPROPHYLAXISVENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM

Identifiers

PMID38476084
PMCPMC11017156
OpenAlexW4392727070

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.