ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2016
Derivation of a risk assessment model for hospital-acquired venous thrombosis: the NAVAL score.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 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
- A composite risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2025Article
- External Validation of the Risk Assessment Model of Venous Thromboembolism in Multicenter Internal Medicine Inpatients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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
Venous thrombosis (VT) is a preventable cause of death in hospitalized patients. The main strategy to decrease VT incidence is timely thromboprophylaxis in at-risk patients. We sought to evaluate the reliability of risk assessment model (RAM) data, the incremental usefulness of additional variables and the modelling of an adjusted score (the NAVAL score). We used the RAM proposed by Caprini for initial assessment. A 5 % systematic sample of data was independently reviewed for reliability. We evaluated the incremental usefulness of six variables for VT during the score modelling by logistic regression. We then assessed the NAVAL score for calibration, reclassification and discrimination performances. We observed 11,091 patients with 37 (0.3 %) VT events. Using the Caprini RAM, high-risk and moderate-risk patients were respectively associated with a 17.4 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 6.1-49.9) and 4.2 (95 % CI 1.6-11.0) increased VT risk compared with low-risk patients. Four independent variables were selected for the NAVAL score: "Age", "Admission clinic", "History of previous VT event" and "History of thrombophilia". The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for the NAVAL score was 0.72 (95 % CI 0.63-0.81). The Net Reclassification Index (NRI) for the NAVAL score compared with the Caprini RAM was -0.1 (95 % CI -0.3 to 0.1; p = 0.28). We conclude that the NAVAL score is a simplified tool for the stratification of VT risk in hospitalized patients. With only four variables, it demonstrated good performance and discrimination, but requires external validation before clinical application. We also confirm that the Caprini RAM can effectively stratify VT risk in hospitalized patients in our population.
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.