ArticleClinical epidemiology2012
Measures of risk and their relationship to the relative size of a high-risk group: application to medical thromboprophylaxis.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical patients: too much or too little?Clinical epidemiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to establish the meaning of "high-risk" when the subgroup so defined by risk factor analysis is a substantial proportion of the population. This is clinically important when patients, deemed to be at high risk as a result of risk factor analysis, become eligible for a clinical intervention to decrease the risk, especially if the intervention has adverse effects. One example in clinical practice is the assessment of eligibility for medical thromboprophylaxis.
methodsEquations were derived relating risk and the proportion of the population (F) deemed to be at high risk on risk factor analysis, based on the formula for weighted average. The equations were validated for the population of medical inpatients at high- or low-risk of thromobembolic events using a spreadsheet model of thrombosis risk containing known risk factors for venous thromboembolism in this population.
resultsThe validated equations define an upper limit of absolute and incremental risk (risk relative to the whole population) in the high-risk group that is a function of or equal to 1/F, respectively. The added risk in the high-risk group declines to zero as F tends to 1, because it must be balanced by the diminishing risk in the progressively smaller low-risk group while maintaining the population average.
conclusionThe results of this study have implications for the validity of the published eligibility criteria for medical thromboprophylaxis.
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.