Trial reportClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis2018
A New Model for Risk Stratification of Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism.
Trial report in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Development and validation of a novel model to predict pulmonary embolism in cardiology suspected patients: A 10-year retrospective analysis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based models for predicting mortality and acute kidney injury in critical pulmonary embolism.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Detection of pulmonary embolism severity using clinical characteristics, hematological indices, and machine learning techniques.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- The predictive value of PaOBMC pulmonary medicine · 2019Observational
- A narrative review of red blood cell distribution width as a marker for pulmonary embolism.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with mortality. There are many clinical prediction tools to predict early mortality in acute PE but little consensus on which is best. Our study aims to validate existing prediction tools and derive a predictive model that can be applied to all patients with acute PE in both inpatient and outpatient settings. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute PE. For each patient, the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), simplified PESI (sPESI), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and Angriman scores were calculated. Scores were assessed by the area under the receive-operating curve (AUC) for 30-day, all-cause mortality. To develop a new prognostic model, elastic logistic regression was used on the derivation cohort to estimate β-coefficients of 8 different variables; these were normalized to weigh them. A total of 321 patients (mean age 60±17 years) were included. Overall 30-day mortality was 10.3%. None of the scores performed well; the AUCs for the PESI, sPESI, ESC, and Angriman scores were 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.77), 0.58 (0.48-0.69), 0.65 (0.55-0.75), and 0.67 (0.57-0.76), respectively. Our new prediction model outperformed PESI, with an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.88). At a cutoff score of 100, 195 (60.1%) patients were classified as low risk. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.8%-5.2%) and 23.0% (16.5%-31.1%) for low- and high-risk groups, respectively (
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.