ArticleContemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland)2015
Thrombotic risk assessment in 185 WHO-defined essential thrombocythemia patients: single center experience.
Article in Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland), 2015. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Essential thrombocythemia presenting as acute coronary syndrome: case reports and literature review.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thrombosis risk in essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients can be assessed using different prognostic systems. Conventional risk factors include age more than 60 years and history of previous thrombosis. In addition, other factors such as JAK2 V617F mutations, cardiovascular risk factors, leukocytosis more than 11 × 10(9)/l, thrombophilic factors and platelet count more than 1500 × 10(9)/l are used in different hematology centers as high-risk features for thrombosis. Our study compared different risk model groups for thrombosis in 185 WHO-defined ET patients at the Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Klinikos. We found that patient distribution in low, intermediate- and high-risk groups varies using different risk stratification models. The biggest difference in risk assignment is evident in patients who are older than 60 years and have no other risk factors and in patients who are younger than 60 years but have other risk factors. This observation suggests that new prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to better stratify patients at risk for thrombosis.
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.