ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
A Systematic Review on Bleeding Risk Scores' Accuracy after Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Acute and Elective Settings.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Bleeding Risk Scores for Major Bleeding in Anticoagulated Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: Insights from the CURES Registry-2.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Toward an integrated risk paradigm: personalizing antithrombotic therapy for coronary heart disease with gastrointestinal bleeding.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and validation of a novel bleeding risk prediction tool for aspirin users with a low body mass index.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- LASSO-derived model for the prediction of bleeding in aspirin users.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Machine learning derived model for the prediction of bleeding in dual antiplatelet therapy patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Predictive Model of Internal Bleeding in Elderly Aspirin Users Using XGBoost Machine Learning.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- High bleeding risk - the clinical context matters.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Article
- Walking the Line with Ticagrelor: Meta-Analysis Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor Monotherapy after a Short Course of Ticagrelor-Based Dual Antiplatelet Therapy versus Standard Therapy in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- A Practical Nomogram for Predicting the Bleeding Risk in Patients with a History of Myocardial Infarction Treating with Aspirin.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) is recommended for all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as it significantly reduces the ischemic risk at the cost of increasing the incidence of bleeding events. Several clinical predictive models were developed to better stratify the bleeding risk associated with DAT. This systematic review aims to perform a literature survey of both standard and emerging bleeding risk scores and report their performance on predicting hemorrhagic events, especially in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stents and more potent P2Y12 inhibitors. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases for full-text studies that developed or validated bleeding risk scores in adult patients undergoing PCI with subsequent DAT. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Eighteen studies were included in the present systematic review. Bleeding risk scores showed a modest to good discriminatory power with c-statistic ranging from 0.49 (95% CI, 0.45-0.53) to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.85). Clinical models that predict in-hospital bleeding events had a relatively good predictive performance, with c-statistic ranging from 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87), depending on the risk scores and major hemorrhagic event definition used. The knowledge and utilization of the current bleeding risk scores in appropriate clinical contexts could improve the prediction of bleeding events.
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.