ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2019
Comparison and screening of different risk assessment models for deep vein thrombosis in patients with solid tumors.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Pauda and the Autar DVT Risk Assessment Scales in Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in ICU Patients.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Article
- Derivation, validation and assessment of a novel nomogram-based risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with lung cancer: A retrospective case control study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Establishment of a risk assessment score for deep vein thrombosis after artificial liver support system treatment.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Comparison of 2013 and 2009 versions of Caprini risk assessment models for predicting VTE in Chinese cancer patients: a retrospective study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Article
- Clinical Validation of the Chinese Version of Patient Completed Caprini Risk Assessment Form.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
- Profile of Solid Tumor Patients Complicated With Venous Thromboembolism: A 10-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Based on 1482 Cases.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisObservational
- Solid Tumor Complicated With Venous Thromboembolism: A 10-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To increase the detection rate of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and to compare the predictive value of four different risk assessment scales (Caprini, Autar, Pauda, and Khorana scales) for DVT in patients with solid tumors by the receiver operating curve (ROC). A total of 361 patients with all kinds of malignant solid tumors, who accepted anti-tumor therapy in the cancer center between March 3, 2015 to April 13, 2018, were assigned to a group of 230 cases diagnosed with DVT and a control group of 131 cases without DVT. Data were recorded and summarized, and the predictive value of the above four risk assessment scales for DVT in solid tumor patients was compared based on the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The AUC values determined for the Caprini, Autar, Pauda, and Khorana scales were (0.631 ± 0.030), (0.686 ± 0.028), (0.654 ± 0.029), and (0.599 ± 0.032), respectively; maximum sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index were 80.9% for Khorana, 86.3% for Caprini, and 29.6% for Autar scale, respectively. We found no statistically significant differences in the AUC values between Autar and Caprini, Autar and Khorana, as well as Khorana and Pauda (p > 0.05). However, the AUC differences between Autar and Pauda, Caprini and Khorana, as well as Caprini and Pauda were statistically significant (p < 0.05). All four risk assessment models showed some value in the risk prediction of DVT in patients with solid tumors, but every model also exhibited its own restrictions; maximum sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index were 80.9% for Khorana, 86.3% for Caprini, and 29.6% for Autar scale, respectively. We confirmed that the detection rate can be improved by modifying the BMI cut-off value of the scale or by combining appropriate scales.
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.