ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Direct Comparison of Patient-completed and Physician-completed Caprini Scores for Plastic Surgery Patients.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of nurses' Caprini risk assessment for venous thromboembolism: a simulation-based observational study in China.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- The Majority of Venous Thromboembolism Events Should Occur in Lower Risk Aesthetic Surgery Patients: A Simulation Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Patient-Completed Caprini Risk Score for Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment: Developed and Validated from 1,017 Medical and Surgical Patients.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the ability of plastic surgery patients to perform their own venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification using a previously validated patient-completed Caprini risk scoring sheet.
methodsPatients' Caprini scores were obtained by an attending physician at an office visit through interview and chart review. Subsequently, patients independently completed a previously validated patient reported scoring sheet. We compared patient and physician reported Caprini scores by each Caprini subquestion and by the overall score. We described discordance of scores using frequencies and proportions, quantified the level of agreement using Cohen's Kappa coefficient, Spearman's correlation coefficient, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and visualize scoring differences using Bland-Altman plots, where appropriate.
resultsWe prospectively enrolled 50 patients. Only 24% (n = 12) of patients had exact matches in physician-completed and patient-completed Caprini scores. Among the 76% (n = 38) with discrepancies, 26 received a higher patient-reported score (median = 2 points, range 1-8 points) and 12 received a lower patient-reported score (median = -1.5 points, range -1 to -6 points). Existing venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines support chemical prophylaxis for inpatients with Caprini scores ≥7. Among 38 patients with score discrepancies, 8 (21.1%) would have been incorrectly prescribed chemical prophylaxis and 4 (10.5%) would have been incorrectly denied chemical prophylaxis.
conclusionsPlastic surgery patients cannot reliably calculate their own 2005 Caprini scores. Reliance on patient completed scores alone would promote ~25% of patients receiving inappropriate prophylaxis strategies.
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.