ArticleThrombosis journal2022
Pregnancy and thrombosis risk for women without a history of thrombotic events: a retrospective study of the real risks.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world evaluation of Chinese National Maternal and Newborn Safety Action Plan for reducing neonatal mortality among pregnant women with conditions: a retrospective, matched, population-based cohort study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Pulmonary Embolism in Women in the Era of Expanding Advanced Therapies.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Soluble Fibrin Monomer Complex and D-Dimer Concentrations Between Patients at Low and High Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Before Delivery According to RCOG Score Assessment: An Observational Study Among 100 Third-Trimester Vietnamese Pregnancies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Multifunctional applications and research advances of low-molecular-weight heparin.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Evaluating Thromboprophylaxis Strategies for High-Risk Pregnancy: A Current Perspective.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Pulmonary Embolism in Pregnancy: A Review for Clinical Practitioners.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring pregnancy and puerperium women are at high VTE risk. Current guidelines recommend dynamic VTE-risk assessment during pregnancy. Based on related RCOG-guidelines we constructed a digital VTE-risk assessment tool: PATrisks ( www.PATrisks.com ). Using this tool, we retrospectively evaluated the thrombotic risk in 742 women from our previous work, women who received thromboprophylaxis based on clinical experience for A) pregnancy complications, B) IVF treatment and C) prothrombotic tendency, in order to investigate whether that practice was justified according to the PATrisks scoring system for VTE prevention.
methodsWomen with pregnancy complications [Group-A: 445], women who had undergone IVF [Group-B:132] and women with a prothrombotic tendency (thrombophilia, family history of VTE, other) [Group-C:165] were assessed using the PATrisks scoring system for thrombotic risk. The women were assigned into one of the following risk categories: low (score ≤ 2), intermediate (score = 3) and high (score ≥ 4). Further analysis per risk factor type (pre-existing or obstetric) and for various combinations of them, was also performed. We evaluated thrombotic risk early in pregnancy, and in the peripartum period.
resultsThe mean risk score antepartum was higher for women in Group B (3.3 in comparison with 1.9 and 2.0 in Group A and Group C respectively). Moreover, the risk score increased significantly postpartum for all Groups. The chi-square test also proved that there was a higher percentage of women at high or intermediate risk in group B compared to C before birth (55.3% vs.26.1% respectively, p < 0.0001, OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 2.2 - 5.7) and similarly after birth (85.6% vs. 56.4%, OR: 4.6, 95%CI: 2.6-8.2, p < 0.0001). In total 12 (1.6%) out of 742 women experienced thrombotic events, whether pre- or post-partum.
conclusionsLMWHs are widely prescribed during pregnancy for a number of indications, even when a proven scientific basis for such a practice is lacking. However, a considerable percentage of women were already at VTE-risk according to PATrisks and might have derived an additional benefit from LMWH in the form of VTE prevention. The rational use of these drugs should be optimized by establishing and implementing routine risk assessment for all pregnant women and by providing the necessary education to healthcare professionals.
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.