↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

13 tweeters


24 Dimensions

Readers on

198 Mendeley
Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003076.pub3
Pubmed ID

Richard Othieno, Emmanuel Okpo, Rachel Forster


Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurs when a blood clot blocks blood flow through a vein, which can occur after surgery, after trauma, or when a person has been immobile for a long time. Clots can dislodge and block blood flow to the lungs (pulmonary embolism (PE)), causing death. DVT and PE are known by the term venous thromboembolism (VTE). Heparin (in the form of unfractionated heparin (UFH)) is a blood-thinning drug used during the first three to five days of DVT treatment. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) allow people with DVT to receive their initial treatment at home instead of in hospital. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2007. To compare the incidence and complications of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients treated at home versus patients treated with standard in-patient hospital regimens. Secondary objectives included assessment of patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of treatment. For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched 16 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and trials registries. We also checked the reference lists of relevant publications. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining home versus hospital treatment for DVT, in which DVT was clinically confirmed and was treated with LMWHs or UFH. One review author selected material for inclusion, and another reviewed the selection of trials. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. Primary outcomes included combined VTE events (PE and recurrent DVT), gangrene, heparin complications, and death. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and cost implications. We performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. We included in this review seven RCTs involving 1839 randomised participants with comparable treatment arms. All seven had fundamental problems including high exclusion rates, partial hospital treatment of many in the home treatment arms, and comparison of UFH in hospital versus LMWH at home. These trials showed that patients treated at home with LMWH were less likely to have recurrence of VTE events than those given hospital treatment with UFH or LMWH (fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.86; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.007; low-quality evidence). No clear difference was seen between groups for major bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.36; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.27; low-quality evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.78; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence), or mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence). The included studies reported no cases of venous gangrene. We could not combine patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis owing to heterogeneity of reporting, but two of three studies found evidence that home treatment led to greater improvement in quality of life compared with in-patient treatment at some point during follow-up, and the third study reported that a large number of participants chose to switch from in-patient care to home-based care for social and personal reasons, suggesting it is the patient's preferred option (very low-quality evidence). None of the studies included in this review carried out a full cost-effectiveness analysis. However, a small randomised economic evaluation of the two alternative treatment settings involving 131 participants found that direct costs were higher for those in the in-patient group. These findings were supported by three other studies that reported on their costs (very low-quality evidence).Quality of evidence for data from meta-analyses was low to very low. This was due to risk of bias, as many of the included studies used unclear randomisation techniques, and blinding was a concern for many. Also, indirectness was a concern, as most studies included a large number of participants randomised to the home (LMWH) treatment group who were treated in hospital for some or all of the treatment period. A further issue for some outcomes was heterogeneity that was evident in measurement and reporting of outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that patients treated at home with LMWH are less likely to have recurrence of VTE than those treated in hospital. However, data show no clear differences in major or minor bleeding, nor in mortality (low-quality evidence), indicating that home treatment is no worse than in-patient treatment for these outcomes. Because most healthcare systems are moving towards more LMWH usage in the home setting it is unlikely that additional large trials will be undertaken to compare these treatments. Therefore, home treatment is likely to become the norm, and further research will be directed towards resolving practical issues by devising local guidelines that include clinical prediction rules, developing biomarkers and imaging that can be used to tailor therapy to disease severity, and providing training for community healthcare workers who administer treatment and monitor treatment progress.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 198 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Researcher 19 10%
Other 14 7%
Other 39 20%
Unknown 52 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 64 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 May 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,028,834 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 402,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,028,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 402,153 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.