ArticleCureus2020
Cancer Screening in Patients with Unprovoked Thromboembolism: How to do it and Who Benefits?
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcome of Patients With Cancer-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Results From the Regional Pulmonary Embolism Registry.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnprovoked venous thromboembolism (uVTE) may be the first manifestation of cancer. The main objectives of this study were to compare limited screening (LS) and extended screening (ES) and to make a protocol to approach these patients.
methodsThis is a retrospective, unicentric observational study that included 245 patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) admitted to an Internal Medicine Service for five years. The incidence of cancer and mortality during hospitalization, and at one and three years after admission were calculated in both LS and ES groups and compared.
resultsOf the 245 patients with VTE, 59 (24.1%) had uVTE: 35 (59.3%) were submitted to LS and 24 (40.7%) to ES, with 10 (4.1%) diagnosis of cancer. In the following three years, 10 more patients were diagnosed. There were no statistically significant differences in inpatient diagnosis rates (8.6% vs. 4.2%; p=0.51) or in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs. 4.2%; p=0.79) or mortality at one year (8.6% vs. 8.3%; p=0.97) and three years (20.0% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.94) between LS and ES groups respectively. The Computerized Registry of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism (RIETE) score was equal or superior to 3 in 69.5% (N=41) of the population with uVTE. DISCUSSION: The results of our study are consistent with the literature; there are no differences between screenings, as the difference in the number of diagnoses does not reflect on mortality.
conclusionThere were no statistically significant differences between the two types of screening in this population. We suggest a protocol that includes the RIETE score to better select the patients who might benefit the most from an ES.
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.