ReviewClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Derivation and External Validation of a Risk Assessment Model of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Chinese Patients.
Review in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Venous thromboembolism in China: epidemiology, management strategies, and future directions.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Review
- Construction and validation of a risk prediction model for venous thromboembolism post-VATS in simultaneous multicentric primary lung cancers.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Analysis of risk factors for prolonged intensive care unit stay after colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Distinct age-adjusted D-dimer threshold to rule out acute pulmonary embolism in outpatients and inpatients.The clinical respiratory journal · 2024Article
- External Validation of the Risk Assessment Model of Venous Thromboembolism in Multicenter Internal Medicine Inpatients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo develop and validate a risk assessment model (RAM) of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized Chinese patients.
methodsWe reviewed data from 300 patients with VTE and 300 non-VTE patients at Beijing Shijitan Hospital. The risk factors related to VTE were analyzed, and the VTE RAM (Shijitan (SJT) version) was developed according to the weight of each risk factor. A total of 407 patients with VTE and 533 non-VTE patients were enrolled for external validation. The sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, receiver operating curve (ROC), and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of VTE RAM (SJT version) compared with Caprini RAM and Padua RAM.
resultsThe VTE RAM (SJT version) contained six risk factors (age >60 years, lower limb edema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), central venous catheterization (CVC), VTE history, and D dimer). In the external validation group, for medical patients, the AUC value of SJT RAM (0.82 ± 0.03) is significantly higher than Caprini RAM (0.76 ± 0.04;
conclusionThe SJT RAM derived from general hospitalized Chinese patients will be time-saving for physicians and has a better predictive ability for patients at risk of VTE.
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.