ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2019
A clinical practice-based evaluation of the RIETE score in predicting occult cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2019. 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.
- D-dimer levels in patients with acute venous thromboembolism and occult cancer: the DD-Neo study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Development of a Predictive Model of Occult Cancer After a Venous Thromboembolism Event Using Machine Learning: The CLOVER Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- External validation of the RIETE and SOME scores for occult cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism: a multicentre cohort study.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- Screening for occult cancer after unprovoked venous thromboembolism: Assessing the current literature and future directions.European journal of haematology · 2023Review
- The Conundrum of Occult Cancer Screening in Venous Thromboembolism: Lessons from the REMOTEV Registry.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The association between venous thromboembolism (VTE) and occult cancer is well established. However, the benefit of cancer screening in all VTE patients remains controversial. The Registro Informatizado Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) score is a recently proposed risk score to identify VTE patients at high risk of occult cancer. We evaluated the performance of the RIETE score in a routine clinical setting comprising patients presenting with VTE between January 1 and December 31, 2014, at Danderyd University hospital. Out of 488 VTE patients, 47 (9.6%) patients received a new cancer diagnosis during a 24-month follow-up. After exclusion of patients with cancer diagnosed at baseline (≤ 10 days after VTE, n = 16), 472 patients were considered eligible for cancer screening. Among these 472 patients, 31 (6.6%) received a cancer diagnosis during follow-up. The cumulative incidence was high after both unprovoked (8.5%) and provoked (4.8%) VTE. The RIETE score was evaluated in 467 of these patients. Interestingly, a high RIETE score was not significantly associated with cancer diagnosis during follow-up (OR 1.78; 95% CI 0.85-3.63), which was mainly due to a poor performance in women (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.30-2.83). In summary, we observed a relatively high incidence of occult cancer in both unprovoked and provoked VTE. The RIETE score performed poorly in identifying patients at high risk of occult cancer in our VTE population. Additional risk assessment models are warranted to identify VTE patients who would benefit from extensive cancer screening.
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.