ArticlePloS one2021
Validation of an admission coagulation panel for risk stratification of COVID-19 patients.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Factors for Mortality in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection in the Americas.Cureus · 2024Review
- Fibrin monomers evaluation during hospitalization for COVID-19 is a predictive marker of in-hospital mortality.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Assessment of thromboembolism risk in COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease risk factors: Analysis of a Japanese Nationwide Registry.Thrombosis research · 2022Article
- Thromboembolic Complications in Covid-19: From Clinical Scenario to Laboratory Evidence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited data on the markers of coagulation and hemostatic activation (MOCHA) profile in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its ability to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for thrombotic events and other complications.
methodsHospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-COV-2 from four Atlanta hospitals were included in this observational cohort study and underwent admission testing of MOCHA parameters (plasma d-dimer, prothrombin fragment 1.2, thrombin-antithrombin complex, fibrin monomer). Clinical outcomes included deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, access line thrombosis, ICU admission, intubation and mortality. MAIN
resultsOf 276 patients (mean age 59 ± 6.4 years, 47% female, 62% African American), 45 (16%) had a thrombotic endpoint. Each MOCHA parameter was independently associated with a thrombotic event (p<0.05) and ≥ 2 abnormalities was associated with thrombotic endpoints (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.2-8.8) as were admission D-dimer ≥ 2000 ng/mL (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.5-6.6) and ≥ 3000 ng/mL (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.6-7.9). However, only ≥ 2 MOCHA abnormalities were associated with ICU admission (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.7-5.2) and intubation (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.4). MOCHA and D-dimer cutoffs were not associated with mortality. MOCHA with <2 abnormalities (26% of the cohort) had 89% sensitivity and 93% negative predictive value for a thrombotic endpoint.
conclusionsAn admission MOCHA profile is useful to risk-stratify COVID-19 patients for thrombotic complications and more effective than isolated d-dimer for predicting risk of ICU admission and intubation.
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.