Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21846713›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011

Development and validation of risk prediction algorithm (QThrombosis) to estimate future risk of venous thromboembolism: prospective cohort study.

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Carol Coupland

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. COVID-19 and Antipsychotic Therapy: Unraveling the Thrombosis Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Sarcopenia.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2019
    Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia Hippisley-CoxDivision of Primary Care, University Park, Nottingham NG2 7RD, UK. juliahippisleycox@gmail.com
Carol Coupland
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo derive and validate a new clinical risk prediction algorithm (QThrombosis, www.qthrombosis.org) to estimate individual patients' risk of venous thromboembolism.

designProspective open cohort study using routinely collected data from general practices. Cox proportional hazards models used in derivation cohort to derive risk equations evaluated at 1 and 5 years. Measures of calibration and discrimination undertaken in validation cohort.

setting564 general practices in England and Wales contributing to the QResearch database.

participantsPatients aged 25-84 years, with no record of pregnancy in the preceding 12 months or any previous venous thromboembolism, and not prescribed oral anticoagulation at baseline: 2,314,701 in derivation cohort and 1,240,602 in validation cohort. Outcomes Incident cases of venous thromboembolism, either deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, recorded in primary care records or linked cause of death records.

resultsThe derivation cohort included 14,756 incident cases of venous thromboembolism from 10,095,199 person years of observation (rate of 14.6 per 10,000 person years). The validation cohort included 6913 incident cases from 4,632,694 person years of observation (14.9 per 10,000 person years). Independent predictors included in the final model for men and women were age, body mass index, smoking status, varicose veins, congestive cardiac failure, chronic renal disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, inflammatory bowel disease, hospital admission in past six months, and current prescriptions for antipsychotic drugs. We also included oral contraceptives, tamoxifen, and hormone replacement therapy in the final model for women. The risk prediction equation explained 33% of the variation in women and 34% in men in the validation cohort evaluated at 5 years The D statistic was 1.43 for women and 1.45 for men. The receiver operating curve statistic was 0.75 for both sexes. The model was well calibrated.

conclusionsWe have developed and validated a new risk prediction model that quantifies absolute risk of thrombosis at 1 and 5 years. It can help identify patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for prevention. The algorithm is based on simple clinical variables which the patient is likely to know or which are routinely recorded in general practice records. The algorithm could be integrated into general practice clinical computer systems and used to risk assess patients before hospital admission or starting medication which might increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesEnglandFemaleForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProportional Hazards ModelsProspective StudiesPulmonary EmbolismRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID21846713
PMCPMC3156826
OpenAlexW2055749619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.