SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison of HAS-BLED with other risk models for predicting the bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: A PRISMA-compliant article.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. 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.
- Machine learning in bleeding risk assessment for low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux: a predictive model study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Risk scores for major bleeding from direct oral anticoagulants: comparing predictive performance in patients with atrial fibrillation.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- HAS-BLED Score for Prediction of Bleeding and Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
- Evaluation of ABC Bleeding Score and SAMe-TT2R2 Score on the Risk of Bleeding after Anticoagulation in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Complicated with Coronary Heart Disease.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe HAS-BLED, HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and ORBIT scores are used to predict bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, these scores have been validated in various studies. Therefore, we aimed to compare the occurrence of major bleeding across different risk categories between HAS-BLED and any of HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, or ORBIT scores.
methodsA systemic literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to screen the relevant studies. We calculated and pooled the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a comparative analysis of the occurrence of major bleeding.
resultsNine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis. Compared with HEMORR2HAGES, there were 87% and 39% reduced rates of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" and "moderate-risk" groups, respectively. Compared with ATRIA, there was an 89% decreased rate of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" group. Compared with ORBIT, there were 84% and 44% reduced rates of major bleeding in the HAS-BLED "low-risk" and "moderate-risk" groups, respectively. Patients with HAS-BLED scores ≥3 showed an approximately 3-fold greater risk of major bleeding compared with patients with scores <3 (OR=3.00, CI: 1.21-7.43).
conclusionsCompared with any of HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, or ORBIT scores, the HAS-BLED score distributed more major bleeding events into the "low" or "moderate" risk categories.
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.