ArticleScientific reports2021
Development and validation of a novel risk assessment model to estimate the probability of pulmonary embolism in postoperative patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges, Recommendations, and Epidemiology of Pulmonary Embolism in India: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Complications and Subsequent Interventions Following Stand-Alone Interspinous Spacers, Open Decompression, or Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- A nomogram for predicting the risk of pulmonary embolism in neurology department suspected PE patients: A 10-year retrospective analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Developing a nomogram-based scoring model to estimate the risk of pulmonary embolism in respiratory department patients suspected of pulmonary embolisms.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of mortality in postoperative patients. Numerous PE prevention clinical practice guidelines are available but not consistently implemented. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel risk assessment model to assess the risk of PE in postoperative patients. Patients who underwent Grade IV surgery between September 2012 and January 2020 (n = 26,536) at the Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were enrolled in our study. PE was confirmed by an identified filling defect in the pulmonary artery system in CT pulmonary angiography. The PE incidence was evaluated before discharge. All preoperative data containing clinical and laboratory variables were extracted for each participant. A novel risk assessment model (RAM) for PE was developed with multivariate regression analysis. The discrimination ability of the RAM was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and model calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. We included 53 clinical and laboratory variables in this study. Among them, 296 postoperative patients developed PE before discharge, and the incidence rate was 1.04%. The distribution of variables between the training group and the validation group was balanced. After using multivariate stepwise regression, only variable age (OR 1.070 [1.054-1.087], P < 0.001), drinking (OR 0.477 [0.304-0.749], P = 0.001), malignant tumor (OR 2.552 [1.745-3.731], P < 0.001), anticoagulant (OR 3.719 [2.281-6.062], P < 0.001), lymphocyte percentage (OR 2.773 [2.342-3.285], P < 0.001), neutrophil percentage (OR 10.703 [8.337-13.739], P < 0.001), red blood cell (OR 1.872 [1.384-2.532], P < 0.001), total bilirubin (OR 1.038 [1.012-1.064], P < 0.001), direct bilirubin (OR 0.850 [0.779-0.928], P < 0.001), prothrombin time (OR 0.768 [0.636-0.926], P < 0.001) and fibrinogen (OR 0.772 [0.651-0.915], P < 0.001) were selected and significantly associated with PE. The final model included four variables: neutrophil percentage, age, malignant tumor and lymphocyte percentage. The AUC of the model was 0.949 (95% CI 0.932-0.966). The risk prediction model still showed good calibration, with reasonable agreement between the observed and predicted PE outcomes in the validation set (AUC 0.958). The information on sensitivity, specificity and predictive values according to cutoff points of the score in the training set suggested a threshold of 0.012 as the optimal cutoff value to define high-risk individuals. We developed a new approach to select hazard factors for PE in postoperative patients. This tool provided a consistent, accurate, and effective method for risk assessment. This finding may help decision-makers weigh the risk of PE and appropriately select PE prevention strategies.
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.