ReviewCurrent opinion in hematology2012
Phenotyping bleeding.
Review in Current opinion in hematology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewAlthough recorded evidence of phenotyping bleeding disorders extends back two millennia, standardization of phenotyping has only begun in the past half century. This was spurred by the need for greater precision in diagnosing disorders in order to select proper laboratory tests and treatment, and the realization that the bleeding history provides prognostic information about the future risk of bleeding with surgery or invasive procedures. RECENT
findingsNew bleeding assessment tools (BATs) have been developed, firstly, to evaluate the relative bleeding risks associated with new anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, secondly, to assess the efficacy of new thrombopoiesis stimulating agents in preventing hemorrhage in patients with immune thrombocytopenia, and finally, to assess complex gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. New web-based systems allow many researchers to collaborate by sharing the same electronic phenotyping infrastructure. Major issues of validation remain, but at present the data indicate that the new BATs have relatively high negative predictive value for excluding a significant bleeding disorder, but disappointingly low positive predictive values. SUMMARY: New instruments to phenotype bleeding have been developed to address a number of different important clinical and research goals. The improved standardization and opportunities for collaborative studies hold promise for maximizing diagnostic, prognostic, and scientific information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.