ArticleBMJ open2021
Models for predicting venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with lung cancer: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Incidence of venous thromboembolism and discriminating capacity of Khorana score in lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 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
introductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with cancer and has a determining role in the disease prognosis. The risk is significantly increased with certain types of cancer, such as lung cancer. Partly due to difficulties in managing haemorrhage in outpatient settings, anticoagulant prophylaxis is only recommended for ambulatory patients at high risk of VTE. This requires a precise VTE risk assessment in individual patients. Although VTE risk assessment models have been developed and updated in recent years, there are conflicting reports on the effectiveness of such risk prediction models in patient management. The aim of this systematic review is to gain a better understanding of the available VTE risk assessment tools for ambulatory patients with lung cancer and compare their predictive performance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases from inception to 30 September 2021, to identify all reports published in English describing VTE risk prediction models which have included adult ambulatory patients with primary lung cancer for model development and/or validation. Two independent reviewers will conduct article screening, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the primary studies. Any disagreements will be referred to a third researcher to resolve. The included studies will be assessed for risk of bias and applicability. The Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies will be used for data extraction and appraisal. Data from similar studies will be used for meta-analysis to determine the incidence of VTE and the performance of the risk models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. We will disseminate the results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021245907.
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.