SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2013
Risk-assessment models for predicting venous thromboembolism among hospitalized non-surgical patients: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Risk models for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients: systematic identification and expert assessment.Blood advances · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of mobility/immobility in thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospitalized patients.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2017Pooled it
- Risk factors for pulmonary embolism in patients preliminarily diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective cohort study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2016Trial
- Occurrence and predictors of recurrence after a first episode of acute venous thromboembolism: population-based Worcester Venous Thromboembolism Study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2016Trial
- Lactate to albumin ratio as a prognostic marker for all-cause mortality in patients with venous thromboembolism: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Limitations of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models in medical patients: Response to "Unmet definitions in thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized medical patients: An appraisal for the need of recommendation".Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models for venous thromboembolism risk assessment at admission: a retrospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews.Blood advances · 2020Article
- Recommendations for VTE Prophylaxis in Medically Ill Patients.Annals of vascular diseases · 2020Article
- Modified IMPROVE VTE Risk Score and Elevated D-Dimer Identify a High Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Acutely Ill Medical Population for Extended Thromboprophylaxis.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Article
- Venous Thromboembolism During Treatment with Antipsychotics: A Review of Current Evidence.CNS drugs · 2018Review
- Thrombosis in the setting of cancer.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2016Review
- Venous thromboembolism: A Call for risk assessment in all hospitalised patients.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2016Article
- Derivation of a risk assessment model for hospital-acquired venous thrombosis: the NAVAL score.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2016Article
- External validation of the risk assessment model of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) for medical patients in a tertiary health system.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is suboptimal in American hospitals despite long-standing evidence-based recommendations. Data from observational studies indicate a lower uptake of effective prophylaxis in patients hospitalized with medical versus surgical conditions. Reluctance to use prophylaxis in medical patients has been attributed to difficulty in identifying at-risk patients and balancing risks of bleeding against occurrence of VTE. Several risk-assessment models (RAMs) have been proposed to assist physicians in identifying non-surgical patients who need prophylaxis. We conducted a systematic review of published RAMs, based on objective criteria, to determine whether any RAM is validated sufficiently to be employed in clinical practice. We identified 11 RAMs, six derived from primary data and five based on expert opinion. The number, types, and strength of association of VTE risk predictors were highly variable. The variability in methods and outcome measurement precluded pooled estimates of these different models. Published RAMs for VTE lack generalizability and adequate validation. As electronic health records become more ubiquitous, validated dynamic RAMs are needed to assess VTE risk at the point-of-care in real time.
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.