ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2019
Evaluation of heparin induced thrombocytopenia using probability scores in a mechanical circulatory support population.
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 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical validation of immunoassay HemosIL® AcuStar HIT-IgG (PF4-H) in the diagnosis of Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients on mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices carry a high risk for thrombocytopenia and due to the routine use of heparin, heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is frequently suspected. HIT Expert Panel (HEP) and 4T scoring tools have been validated in the general medicine population to assess the probability of HIT diagnosis, however, these tests have not been validated for use in patients requiring MCS support. The objective of this study was to assess the association of 4T and HEP scores to available assess HIT diagnostic tests in patients requiring MCS. We conducted a retrospective review of patients requiring MCS who had heparin PF4 antibody optical density and/or serotonin release assay results reported. A 4T and HEP score at the time of heparin antibody ordering was calculated. Utilizing previously described ranges for HIT diagnostic tests, patients were categorized into two HIT probability categories: probable and not probable. Descriptive statistics were used for the 4T and HEP scores in both HIT probability categories and t-test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to determine the association and agreement between each scoring tool and HIT probability. Eighty-five patients were identified who had HIT diagnostic tests ordered while on MCS; 7 patients were classified as HIT probable and 78 patients were classified as HIT not probable. Based on ROC analysis, 4T score and HEP score had an AUC of 0.88 (± 0.06) and 0.96 (± 0.02), respectively demonstrating high predictability of HIT. Utilizing sensitivity and specificity analysis through ROC curves, a cut off score of 3 for 4T score and 1 for HEP score was established. Based on our analysis, both 4T and HEP scores have high predictability of HIT in the mechanical circulatory support 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.