ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2020
Predicting postdischarge hospital-associated venous thromboembolism among medical patients using a validated mortality risk score derived from common biomarkers.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methods of a cluster-randomized, type II hybrid implementation effectiveness trial to prospectively assess extended-duration thromboprophylaxis for at-risk medical patients being discharged to prevent hospital-associated venous thromboembolism.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Post-discharge thrombosis and bleeding in medical patients: A novel risk score derived from ubiquitous biomarkers.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2021Article
- Predicting postdischarge hospital-associated venous thromboembolism among medical patients using a validated mortality risk score derived from common biomarkers.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDischarged medical patients are at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is difficult to identify which discharged patients would benefit from extended duration thromboprophylaxis. The Intermountain Risk Score is a prediction score derived from discrete components of the complete blood cell count and basic metabolic panel and is highly predictive of 1-year mortality. We sought to ascertain if the Intermountain Risk Score might also be predictive of 90-day postdischarge hospital-associated VTE (HA-VTE).
methodsWe applied the Intermountain Risk Score to 60 064 medical patients who survived 90 days after discharge and report predictiveness for HA-VTE. Area under the receiver operating curve analyses were performed. We then assessed whether the Intermountain Risk Score improved prediction of 2 existing VTE risk assessment models.
resultsThe Intermountain Risk Score poorly predicted HA-VTE (area under the curve = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.60). Each clinical risk assessment model was superior to the Intermountain Risk Score (UTAH area under the curve, 0.63; Kucher area under the curve, 0.62; Intermountain Risk Score area under the curve, 0.58;
conclusionThe Intermountain Risk Score demonstrated poor predictiveness for HA-VTE when compared to existing risk assessment models. Adding the Intermountain Risk Score to existing risk assessment models did not improve upon either risk assessment model alone to justify the added complexity.
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.