ArticleScientific reports2025
Analysis on the causes of unsatisfactory prevention effect of postpartum VTE in Chinese women.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on venous thromboembolism among maternal women and analysis of influencing factors: a cross-sectional study in Southwest China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Risk Stratification and Safety Profile of Pharmacological Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Postpartum Women Following Cesarean Section: A Comparative Evaluation.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in obstetrics remains challenging, with cases still occurring despite preventive measures. The aim of this study is to investigate the underlying causes by analyzing potential issues in current postpartum VTE prevention strategies in China. This retrospective study was conducted in our hospital from May 2021 to August 2024. VTE risk was assessed using the Chinese Expert Consensus on VTE Prevention and Treatment during Pregnancy and Puerperium (Chinese Consensus), and preventive measures were implemented accordingly. Clinical variables, timing of prophylaxis, and the predictive accuracy of the Chinese Consensus were analyzed. The VTE group had higher D-dimer levels and longer hospital stays and shorter gestational ages (P < 0.05). Significant differences were observed in postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), premature birth, autoimmune diseases, and cesarean delivery (P < 0.05). Despite 65.4% receiving thromboprophylaxis, 25.2% developed VTE, with higher incidences in those without prophylaxis. Pneumatic therapy and LMWH were effective in high-risk patients (P < 0.05). Early VTE occurred 6 h postpartum, with 41.8% within 48 h. Most preventive measures were initiated at 24-48 h postpartum, potentially delaying optimal protection. The ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.497 (P = 0.937), indicating limited predictive efficacy of the Chinese Consensus. Current postpartum VTE prevention is inadequate, as some at-risk patients still miss the opportunity for pneumatic therapy and LMWH anticoagulation after delivery. Initiating LMWH prophylaxis 24 h postpartum appears to be delayed. The predictive ability of the Chinese Consensus for assessing VTE risk is limited. Future research is essential to optimize prevention strategies and reduce the incidence of postpartum VTE.
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.