İpek ÇALIK, Mehmet ORUÇ, Ayşe BAHADIR, Gözde ÖZSOY ŞEN, Şevket Tuna TÜRKKOLU, Gizem GÜRSOY, Melike Makul ÖNER, Verda ALPAY, İstemi SERİN
Cerrahpaşa Medical Journal - 2026;50(1):1-9
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate specialty-based differences in the interpretation of thrombophilia panel results and their influence on anticoagulation-related decisions. Methods: This cross-sectional, scenario-based physician survey included 317 physicians from internal medicine, pulmonology, neurology, cardiovascular surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, and hematology. Participants reported thrombophilia testing practices, perceived indications, and anticoagulation-related decisions. Each participant evaluated a specialty-specific clinical vignette, followed by the same predefined thrombophilia panel result across all specialties. Additional mini-scenarios and 5-point Likert-type scales assessed risk perception, family screening decisions, self-reported competence, training adequacy, guideline adequacy, perceived overuse, and clinical utility. Results: Specialty-based variation was observed throughout the thrombophilia-related decision pathway, from test access and ordering practices to interpretation of panel results and subsequent clinical management. Despite receiving the same predefined thrombophilia panel, participants differed in anticoagulant intensity and class preferences, treatment-modification decisions, and family-screening recommendations. Responses to the common mini-scenarios also varied, particularly in the management of asymptomatic individuals with hereditary thrombophilia profiles and in the assessment of thrombotic risk. Hematologists more frequently favored follow-up without anticoagulation in asymptomatic high-risk genotypes and reported greater competence and training adequacy, whereas decision-making was more heterogeneous across the non-hematology specialties. Conclusion: Interpretation of thrombophilia panel results and anticoagulation-related decisions varied substantially across specialties. Clearer interdisciplinary guidance, structured reporting, and targeted education may help reduce overinterpretation of complex thrombophilia panels and support more consistent decision-making.
