ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Performance of the ABC-bleeding risk score for assessing major bleeding risk in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation therapy: A real-world study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress on bleeding risk assessment models in anticoagulant therapy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate performance of the ABC (Age, Biomarkers, Clinical history)-bleeding risk score in estimating major bleeding risk in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy in real-world practice. Methods: Data were collected from the Chinese Atrial Fibrillation Registry study (CAFR). Patients were stratified into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups based on ABC-bleeding risk score with 1-year major bleeding risk (<1%, 1-2%, and > 2%) and modified HAS-BLED score (≤1, 2, and > 2 points). Cox proportional-hazards (Cox-PH) models were used to determine the association of major bleeding incidence with bleeding scores. Harrell's C-index of the two scores were compared. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) at 1 year were employed to evaluate the reclassification capacity. The calibration curve was plotted to compare the predicted major bleeding risk using ABC-bleeding risk score with the observed annualized event rate. The decision analysis curves (DCA) were performed to show the clinical utilization of two scores in identifying major bleeding events. Results: The study included 2,892 AF patients on OAC therapy. After the follow-up of 3.0 years, 48 patients had major bleeding events; the incidence of a bleeding event in the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups according to ABC-bleeding risk score was 0.31% (reference group, HR = 1.00),0.51% (HR = 1.83, 95%CI: 0.91-3.69, Conclusion: This study verified the value of the ABC-bleeding risk score in assessing major bleeding risk in Chinese patients with AF on OAC therapy in real-world practice. Despite the overestimation of major bleeding risk, ABC-bleeding score performed better in stratifying patients with a high risk than the modified HAS-BLED score. Combining the two scores could be a clinically practical strategy for precisely stratifying AF patients, especially those at a high risk of major bleeding, and further supporting the optimization of OAC treatment.
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.