Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25069704›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Predicting risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed with anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate the QBleed scores.

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Carol Coupland

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Management dilemmas in restarting anticoagulation after gastrointestinal bleeding.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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 Julia.hippisley-cox@nottingham.ac.uk.
Carol CouplandDivision of Primary Care, University Park, Nottingham NG2 7RD, UK.
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and validate risk algorithms (QBleed) for estimating the absolute risk of upper gastrointestinal and intracranial bleed for patients with and without anticoagulation aged 21-99 years in primary care.

designOpen cohort study using routinely collected data from general practice linked to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data during the five year study period between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2013.

setting565 general practices in England contributing to the national QResearch database to develop the algorithm and 188 different QResearch practices to validate the algorithm. All 753 general practices had data linked to hospital episode statistics and mortality data at individual patient level. ENDPOINT: Gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed recorded on either the linked mortality data or the linked hospital records.

participantsWe studied 4.4 million patients in the derivation cohort with 16.4 million person years of follow-up. During follow-up, 21,641 patients had an incident upper gastrointestinal bleed and 9040 had an intracranial bleed. For the validation cohort, we identified 1.4 million patients contributing over 4.9 million person years of follow-up. During follow-up, 6600 patients had an incident gastrointestinal bleed and 2820 had an intracranial bleed. We excluded patients without a valid Townsend score for deprivation and those prescribed anticoagulants in the 180 days before study entry. RISK FACTORS: Candidate variables recorded on the general practice computer system before entry to the cohort, including personal variables (age, sex, Townsend deprivation score, ethnicity), lifestyle variables (smoking, alcohol intake), chronic diseases, prescribed drugs, clinical values (body mass index, systolic blood pressure), and laboratory test results (haemoglobin, platelets). We also included previous bleed recorded before entry to the study.

resultsThe final QBleed algorithms incorporated 21 variables. When applied to the validation cohort, the algorithms in women explained 40% of the variation for upper gastrointestinal bleed and 58% for intracranial bleed. The corresponding D statistics were 1.67 and 2.42. The receiver operating curve statistic values were 0.77 and 0.86. The sensitivity values for the top 10th of men and women at highest risk were 38% and 51%, respectively. There were similar results for men.

conclusionThe QBleed algorithms provided valid measures of absolute risk of gastrointestinal and intracranial bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation as shown by the performance of the algorithms in a separate validation cohort. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the cost effectiveness of using these algorithms in primary care.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionAlgorithmsAnticoagulantsEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansIntracranial HemorrhagesMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultAnticoagulants

Identifiers

PMID25069704
PMCPMC4113281
OpenAlexW1969172134

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.