ReviewAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2024
Evidence summary on perioperative non-pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Review in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To summarize the best evidence related to perioperative non-pharmacologic prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic cancer, and improve the quality of clinical practice. Methods: According to the "6S" evidence pyramid model, we searched guideline networks, professional society websites, and comprehensive databases for clinical decisions, clinical guidelines, expert consensus, evidence summaries, and systematic reviews related to perioperative non-pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic cancer. The literature quality assessment followed appropriate tools. If there were any conflicts about the conclusions drawn from different sources of evidence, this study followed the principle of high-quality evidence and the latest published authoritative literature priority. The "JBI Evidence Pre-grading and Evidence Recommendation Level System 2014" was adopted for the evidence lacking a grading system. Results: Nineteen studies were included, including 7 guidelines, 5 expert consensus, 2 clinical decisions, 3 evidence summaries, and 2 systematic reviews. Twenty-three pieces of best evidence were summarized in five aspects: risk assessment, mechanical prophylactic devices, initiation and duration of non-pharmacological prevention, implementation strategies, and health education. Conclusions: The 23 pieces of evidence in five aspects we summarized provide scientific references for clinical caregivers to develop perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for pancreatic cancer patients. In addition, in order for evidence to be effectively used to improve the quality of clinical practice, clinical caregivers should consider patient preferences and explore barriers to the evidence translation and application. Systematic review registration: This study has been registered on the Fudan University Centre for Evidence-based Nursing (Registation No. ES20233506).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.