↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Title
Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005258.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stavros K Kakkos, Joseph A Caprini, George Geroulakos, Andrew N Nicolaides, Gerard Stansby, Daniel J Reddy, Ioannis Ntouvas

Abstract

It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is an update of the review first published in 2008. The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis versus single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism. For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (May 2016). In addition the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4)). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE. We independently selected trials and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We included a total of 22 trials (9137 participants) of which 15 were randomized trials (7762 participants). The overall risk of bias was mostly unclear or high due to selection and performance bias. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and this was downgraded from high to moderate or very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness.The rate of PE in the studies comparing IPC alone with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis was low, underpowering the analyses. The incidence of symptomatic PE was 0.79% with IPC, but ranged between 0.1 to 1% with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.34; 12 studies, 3017 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 4.10% in the IPC group and 2.19% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; 11 studies, 2934 participants, moderate quality evidence). The addition of an anticoagulant to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone; 0.66% (7/1053) in the IPC group and 4.0% (44/1102) in the combined group (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 10.77; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern; 0.1% (1/1053) in the IPC group to 1.5% (17/1102) in the combined group (OR 6.81, 95% CI 1.99 to 23.28; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence).We detected no difference between the type of surgery subgroups such as orthopedic and non-orthopedic participants for DVT incidence (P = 0.16). Tests for differences between type of surgery subgroups were not possible for PE incidence.Compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone, the use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 2.92% to 1.20% (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64; 10 studies, 3544 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 6.2% in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 2.9% in the combined group showing no difference between the combined and pharmacological prophylaxis groups (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.03; 11 studies, 2866 participants, moderate quality evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (bleeding: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.14, very low quality evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, very low quality evidence, 3 studies, 244 participants).No difference was detected between the type of surgery subgroups for PE incidence (P = 0.68) or for DVT incidence (P = 0.10). Moderate quality evidence suggests that combining IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis, compared with IPC or pharmacological prophylaxis alone, decreases the incidence of DVT when compared to compression, and incidence of PE when compared to anticoagulation. Moderate quality evidence suggests that there is no difference between combined and single modalities in the incidence of PE when compared with compression alone and DVT when compared with anticoagulation alone. The quality of evidence for PE or DVT was downgraded to moderate due to imprecision or risk of bias in study methodology, highlighting the need for further research. Moderate quality evidence suggests the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed for IPC when added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low quality evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The quality of evidence for bleeding was downgraded to moderate due to indirectness or very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, indirectness and imprecision highlighting the need for further research. Nevertheless, the results of the current review agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised patients (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 182 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Other 22 12%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Other 43 23%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 41 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,379,335
of 17,829,815 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,088
of 11,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,263
of 272,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,829,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 272,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.