ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2014
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.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 11 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
88 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 151 citations in OpenAlex.
- Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in adults hospitalised for psychiatric illness: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline developed using GRADE.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Guideline
- Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- An update on the global use of risk assessment models and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with medical illnesses from the World Thrombosis Day steering committee: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2022Pooled it
- Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Guideline
- Scientific and Standardization Committee communication: Clinical guidance on the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2020Guideline
- Risk models for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients: systematic identification and expert assessment.Blood advances · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients.Blood advances · 2018Guideline
- Variation in Definitions of Immobility in Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis Clinical Trials in Medical Inpatients: A Systematic Review.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of mobility/immobility in thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospitalized patients.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2017Pooled it
- Individualized predictions of early isolated distal deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective study.BMC geriatrics · 2021Trial
- Proportion of US Hospitalized Medically Ill Patients Who May Qualify for Extended Thromboprophylaxis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisTrial
- Impact of Associated Infections on the Clinical Course and Risk-Stratification Profile of Pulmonary Embolism: Comparative Analysis Using PESI, Wells, Padua, and IMPROVE Scores.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Venous Thromboembolism Risk and Prevention After Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: Real World Evidence From a Large Integrated Healthcare System.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Multisite Real-World Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated Generative Artificial Intelligence Tool for Venous Thromboembolism Risk Stratification.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Development and validation of risk models for hospital-acquired bleeding in medical inpatients: the Medical Inpatients Thrombosis and Hemostasis (MITH) study.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2026Article
- Thrombotic risk in hepatitis C: Interplay between hepatic dysfunction, viral-driven inflammation, and cardiovascular consequences.World journal of virology · 2025Review
- Use of a Risk Assessment Model for Venous Thromboembolism Is Associated with Decreased Prophylaxis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting venous thromboembolism among hospitalized adults: a protocol for development and validation of an implementable real-time prognostic model.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Review
28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitalized medical patients are at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Universal application of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis has the potential to place a large number of patients at increased bleeding risk. In this study, we aimed to externally validate the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) VTE risk assessment model in a hospitalized general medical population. METHODS AND
resultsWe identified medical discharges that met the IMPROVE protocol. Cases were defined as hospital-acquired VTE and confirmed by diagnostic study within 90 days of index hospitalization; matched controls were also identified. Risk factors for VTE were based on the IMPROVE risk assessment model (aged >60 years, prior VTE, intensive care unit or coronary care unit stay, lower limb paralysis, immobility, known thrombophilia, and cancer) and were measured and assessed. A total of 19 217 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall VTE event rate was 0.7%. The IMPROVE risk assessment model identified 2 groups of the cohort by VTE incidence rate: The low-risk group had a VTE event rate of 0.42 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.53), corresponding to a score of 0 to 2, and the at-risk group had a VTE event rate of 1.29 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.57), corresponding to a score of ≥3. Low-risk status for VTE encompassed 68% of the patient cohort. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.702, which was in line with the derivation cohort findings.
conclusionsThe IMPROVE VTE risk assessment model validation cohort revealed good discrimination and calibration for both the overall VTE risk model and the identification of low-risk and at-risk medical patient groups, using a risk score of ≥3. More than two thirds of the entire cohort had a score ≤2.
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.