↓ Skip to main content

Role of Extended Thromboprophylaxis After Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Role of Extended Thromboprophylaxis After Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, February 2016
DOI 10.1245/s10434-016-5127-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrei Fagarasanu, Ghazi S. Alotaibi, Ramona Hrimiuc, Agnes Y. Y. Lee, Cynthia Wu

Abstract

Abdominopelvic cancer surgery increases the risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis is recommended, and the role of extended thromboprophylaxis (ETP) is controversial. We performed a systematic review to determine the effect of ETP on deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality after abdominal or pelvic cancer surgery. A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was undertaken, and studies were included if they compared extended duration (2-6 weeks) with conventional duration of thromboprophylaxis (2 weeks or less) after cancer surgery. Pooled relative risk (RR) was estimated using a random effects model. Seven randomized and prospective studies were included, comprising 4807 adult patients. ETP was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of all VTEs [2.6 vs. 5.6 %; RR 0.44, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.70, number needed to treat (NNT) = 39] and proximal DVT (1.4 vs. 2.8 %; RR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.23-0.91, NNT = 71). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of symptomatic PE (0.8 vs. 1.3 %; RR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.23-1.40), major bleeding (1.8 vs. 1.0 %; RR 1.19, 95 % CI 0.47-2.97), and all-cause mortality (4.2 vs. 3.6 %; RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.47-1.33). None of the outcomes differed if randomized trials were analyzed independently. ETP after abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer significantly decreased the incidence of all VTEs and proximal DVTs, but had no impact on symptomatic PE, major bleeding, or 3-month mortality. ETP should be routinely considered in the setting of abdominal and pelvic surgery for cancer patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 19%
Student > Master 8 15%
Unspecified 6 11%
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 66%
Unspecified 13 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#9,942,613
of 12,419,165 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2,232
of 2,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,328
of 276,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#116
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.