Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36078893›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Empiric Anticoagulation Therapy in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: An Evaluation of Bleeding Risk Scores Performances in Predicting Bleeding Events.

Mona A Abdelrahman, Aya Ahmed, Abdullah S Alanazi, Hasnaa Osama

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Heparin for Preventing Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mona A AbdelrahmanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni-Suef University, Beni Suef 2722165, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-8748-8090
Aya AhmedDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni Suef 2722165, Egypt.
Abdullah S AlanaziDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Jouf University, Sakaka 72388, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-8120-4018
Hasnaa OsamaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni-Suef University, Beni Suef 2722165, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-2990-5981
Beni-Suef University · EGJouf University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, there is no standardized consensus on anticoagulation (AC) among patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which has an overwhelming bleeding risk. We aimed to compare the patterns of AC in COVID-19 patients and compare two validated risk scores in predicting bleeding events. A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for COVID-19 patients who received empiric anticoagulation therapy. The primary outcomes included bleeding events, survival, and mechanical ventilation needs. We applied the HAS-BLED and ORBIT bleeding risk scores to assess the predictive accuracy, using c-statistics and the receiver operating curve (ROC) method. Of the included patients (n = 921), with a mean age of 58.1 ± 13.2, 51.6% received therapeutic AC and 48.4% received a prophylactic AC dose. Significantly higher values of d-dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP) among the therapeutic AC users (p < 0.001) were noted with a significantly prolonged duration of hospital stay and mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001 and p = 0.011, respectively). The mean value of the HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores were 2.53 ± 0.93 and 2.26 ± 1.29, respectively. The difference between the two tested scores for major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding was significant (p = 0.026 and 0.036, respectively) with modest bleeding predictive performances. The therapeutic AC was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. HAS-BLED showed greater accuracy than ORBIT in bleeding risk predictability.

Indexed as

anticoagulationbleeding scoreCOVID-19HAS-BLED scoreORBIT score

Identifiers

PMID36078893
PMCPMC9456421
OpenAlexW4293219174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.