ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2020
Padua prediction score and IMPROVE score do predict in-hospital mortality in Internal Medicine patients.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thromboembolic Risk and High Prothrombotic Factors in Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia with Ischemic Stroke: A Literature Review of Personalized and Institutional Approaches to Prophylaxis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- The Clot Stops Here: Insights Into Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Adherence From Two Cases.Cureus · 2024Article
- Thrombosis and Bleeding Risk Scores Are Strongly Associated with Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The thrombotic risk in Cushing's syndrome-questions, answers, and the algorithm to consider in its assessment: part I-thrombotic risk not related to surgery.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Application of the Caprini risk model in preventing deep venous thrombosis formation in patients with nephrotic syndrome.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Prediction of bleeding in patients being considered for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2023Article
- [Application of Padua prediction score and serum albumin level in evaluating venous thromboembolism in rheumatic inpatients].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2023Article
- Indirect Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on In-Hospital Outcomes among Internal Medicine Departments: A Double-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Ability of IMPROVE and IMPROVE-DD scores to predict outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19: a prospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2022Observational
- Fatal Case of Possible Thyroid Crisis Induced by SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Case Report.Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies · 2022Article
- Pulmonary embolism with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2021Review
- One score fits all: not always!Internal and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- External Validation of the Risk Assessment Model of Venous Thromboembolism in Multicenter Internal Medicine Inpatients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Padua prediction score (PPS) and IMPROVE bleeding score are validated tools for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment recommended by guidelines, albeit not frequently used. Some data suggest that a positive PPS and IMPROVE score may be were associated with early mortality in Internal Medicine patients. Aim of the study was to characterize the predictive ability on mortality of the two scores using two different populations, respectively, as derivation and validation cohort. The derivation cohort consisted of 1956 Internal Medicine patients admitted to La Spezia Hospital in 2013. 399 Internal Medicine patients admitted to Carate Brianza Hospital in 2016 constituted the validation cohort. PPS and IMPROVE scores were applied to each patient using their validated cutoffs. Frequency of positive PPS and mortality were significantly higher in La Spezia patients. In the derivation cohort, the positivity of at least one of the two scores was associated with a significantly higher mortality compared to both negative scores. Similar results were observed in the validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, the sensitivity of a positive PPS score in predicting mortality was 0.97 (0.94, 0.98) but the specificity was 0.21 (0.19, 0.23), the negative likelihood ratio being 0.15. Sensitivity and specificity of a positive IMPROVE gave specular findings but the positive likelihood ratio was 2.19. The accuracy data in the validation cohort were in the same direction. Both PPS and IMPROVE are associated with in-hospital mortality but their additional predictive accuracy is modest. It is unlikely that both scores could be useful in clinical practice to predict death in hospitalized Internal Medicine patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31898205What 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.