ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2018
HITTING the Diagnosis: Testing for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Cancer Patients.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2018. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Clinical Efficacy and Economic Benefits of Recombinant Human Thrombopoietin for the Treatment of Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Thrombocytopenia.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the use of a pretest probability score (4Ts score) in cancer patients to guide ordering of laboratory screening tests for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT).
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted for patients (n = 140) in whom laboratory testing for HIT was requested. 4Ts scores were calculated and correlated with heparin-endogenous platelet factor 4 antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test results.
resultsAll patients with a high pretest probability of HIT (4Ts score = 6-7) had positive ELISA results, compared to 26.1% of patients with intermediate (4Ts score = 4-5) and 4.3% of patients with low (4Ts score ≤3) pretest probability. No patients with 4Ts scores of 2 or less had positive ELISA results.
conclusionsHIT can be ruled out in cancer patients (negative predictive value and sensitivity = 100%) with low pretest probability, defined by 4Ts scores of 2 or less, significantly reducing the need for laboratory testing in this patient 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.