Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31885320›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020

Risk factors, risk assessment, and prognosis in patients with gynecological cancer and thromboembolism.

Xindan Wang, Jing Huang, Zhao Bingbing, Shape Li, Li Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Analysis of Risk Factors of Postoperative Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Cervical Cancer.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Venous Thromboembolism in Women with Breast and Gynaecological Cancers: What Do We Know and What Should We Do?Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Xindan WangDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0672-4133
Jing HuangDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Zhao BingbingDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Shape LiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Li LiDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate a suitable risk assessment model to predict deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with gynecological cancer.

methodsData from 212 patients with gynecological cancer in the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were risk-stratified with three different risk assessment models individually, including the Caprini model, Wells DVT model, and Khorana model.

resultsThe difference in risk level evaluated by the Caprini model was not different between the DVT and control groups. However, the DVT group had a significantly higher risk level than the control group with the Wells DVT or Khorana model. The Wells DVT model was more effective for stratifying patients in the DVT group into the higher risk level and for stratifying those in the control group into the lower risk level. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the area under the curve of the Wells DVT, Khorana, and Caprini models was 0.995 ± 0.002, 0.642 ± 0.038, and 0.567 ± 0.039, respectively.

conclusionThe Wells DVT model is the most suitable risk assessment model for predicting DVT. Clinicians could also combine the Caprini and Wells DVT models to effectively identify high-risk patients and eliminate patients without DVT.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsThromboembolismVenous ThrombosisChinaHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsdeep vein thrombosisGynecological cancerrisk assessmentsurvivalthromboembolismWells model

Identifiers

PMID31885320
PMCPMC7645363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.