ArticleOncotarget2017
Comparing the ORBIT and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- DOAC Score Versus HAS-BLED and ORBIT for Predicting Bleeding Events in Atrial Fibrillation on Direct Oral Anticoagulants.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Brazilian Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Optimizing care for patients after major anticoagulant-related bleeding: a narrative review and proposal for a clinical care pathway.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use in Older Adults with Atrial Fibrillation: Challenges and Solutions.European cardiology · 2025Review
- Risk scores for major bleeding from direct oral anticoagulants: comparing predictive performance in patients with atrial fibrillation.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Less major bleeding and higher hemoglobin after left atrial appendage closure in high-risk patients: Data from a long-term, longitudinal, two-center observational study.Clinical cardiology · 2023Observational
- Anticoagulant use in older persons at risk for falls: therapeutic dilemmas-a clinical review.European geriatric medicine · 2023Review
- Is There a Role for Triple Therapy After ACS?Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Mitral Regurgitation and Body Mass Index Increase the Predictability of Perioperative Bleeding in Anticoagulated Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Narrative Review of Management Strategies and Risk Mitigation for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving Warfarin.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores have been proposed to assess bleeding risk in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the predictive ability by using these two scores. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, Elsevier and PubMed databases for related studies. Statistical analysis was performed with Revman 5.3 Manager software. We chose the C-statistic to reflect the diagnostic value.
resultsIn our seven selected studies, the pooled C- statistic of continuous variables for major bleeding was 0.65 (0.60,0.69) for ORBIT and 0.63 (0.60,0.66) for HAS-BLED. Compared with HAS-BLED, more anticoagulated AF patients (88.45% versus 32.59%) and major bleeding events (75.57% versus 25.57%) were categorized as low risk. The ORBIT score had a 1.21, 1.73 and 1.44-fold elevated risk of major bleeding in the low, intermediate and high risk strata respectively. Calibration analysis demonstrated that the ORBIT score under-predicted major bleeding in the low, intermediate, and high risk stratifications, where a odds ratio of 0.64 (0.37-1.10), 0.63 (0.38-1.05) and 0.64 (0.38-1.06), respectively.
conclusionsCompared with HAS-BLED , the ORBIT score does not perform better in predicting major bleeding events in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients. More anticoagulated AF patients and major bleeding events were categorized as low risk when using ORBIT.
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.