ReviewJournal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH2019
Predicting the risk of recurrent venous thrombosis: What the future might bring.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten-Year Multicenter Retrospective Study Utilizing Machine Learning Algorithms to Identify Patients at High Risk of Venous Thromboembolism After Radical Gastrectomy.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Prediction of recurrent venous thrombosis in all patients with a first venous thrombotic event: The Leiden Thrombosis Recurrence Risk Prediction model (L-TRRiP).PLoS medicine · 2019Article
- Risk prediction of recurrent venous thrombosis; where are we now and what can we add?Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2019Article
- Predicting the risk of recurrent venous thrombosis: What the future might bring.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important clinical problem in the management of venous thrombosis is to determine whether a patient can safely cease anticoagulant therapy. In this Forum article, we summarize the predictive performance of several prediction models for recurrent thrombosis, as well as for bleeding while using anticoagulants. Patients with provoked first thrombosis (considered "low risk") are now denied long-term treatment, although a strong gradient in risk can be found in this group. We furthermore discuss the problem of an unclear definition of "(un)provoked" and show that this affects the yield of currently available prediction scores plus the limitations of a "one-size-fits-all" strategy. Better prediction tools are urgently needed. We propose a strategy for future studies for which the following should be considered: (a) reporting of absolute risks next to C-statistics, (b) model applicable to all patients, (c) no discontinuation of anticoagulation for measurement of predictors.
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.