ArticleBMJ open2017
Screening for cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unprovoked venous thromboembolism recurrence and arterial embolism revealing lung cancer: a case report.Thrombosis journal · 2024Article
- CT imaging for occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a tertiary centre: is it worthwhile?Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Identifying mutation-driven changes in gene functionality that lead to venous thromboembolism.Human mutation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOccult cancer is present in 4%-9% of patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). Screening for cancer may be considered in these patients, with the aim to diagnose cancers in an early, potentially curable stage. Information is needed about the risk of occult cancer, overall and in specific subgroups, additional risk factors and on the performance of different screening strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from November 2007 to January 2016 for prospective studies that had evaluated protocol-mandated screening for cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE and with at least 12 months' follow-up. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Ten eligible studies were identified and individual patient data were obtained from each of them. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool . Generalised linear mixed-effects models was used to calculate estimates in a one-stage meta-analytic approach, overall and in a number of subgroups, including patients undergoing limited screening only, elderly patients, patients with previous VTE, smokers and patients using oestrogens. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Findings have been submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conferences to provide clinicians and other decision-makers with valid and precise risk estimates of occult cancer, overall and in specific clinical subgroups, with risk factors for occult cancer, with estimates of the diagnostic performance of limited screening and with an exploration of the benefit of extensive screening strategies.
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.