ArticlePloS one2026
Extended thrombotic prophylaxis in COVID-19 early discharge: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
backgroundDue to limits in available staff and space during the COVID-19 pandemic, home monitoring programmes were introduced, reducing strain on resources, and preventing readmissions. Several hospitals included prophylaxis for venous thrombotic events (VTE), as COVID-19 appeared to be thrombogenic. Other hospitals did not, expecting patients to be more mobile while at home. Our aim was to determine whether the administration of nadroparin has led to a difference in VTE occurrence between two groups of previously included patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective cohort study of two cohorts included in home monitoring with the same protocol, except for nadroparin prophylaxis.
results663 patients were analysed in equal groups from two hospitals. No significant difference was found in occurrence of VTE after discharge, readmissions in general or readmissions due to VTE in otherwise comparable groups. DISCUSSION: As opposed to trials determining thrombotic prophylaxis was of benefit after discharge due to COVID-19, we found no difference between our groups. Our study was retrospective and comprised data compiled over almost two years, which provides a relatively large sample size and overview through different treatment regimes.
conclusionFor the future, thrombotic prophylaxis for COVID-19 home monitoring might not be indicated and reconsidered for different home monitoring programmes.
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.