ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2023
Risk of thrombosis in essential thrombocythemia according to three prediction models: an external validation study.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and Molecular Insights of Arterial and Venous Thrombosis in Myeloproliferative Diseases-Case-Based Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Article
- Thrombotic Prediction Model Based on Epigenetic Regulator Mutations in Essential Thrombocythemia Patients Using Survival Analysis in Recurrent Events.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThrombosis is a major complication of essential thrombocythemia (ET). There are three well-known prediction models for thrombotic risk in ET patients. However, only few external validation studies for the performance of these models in Asian populations have been conducted. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the performance of these models for predicting the risk of thrombosis in Thai patients with ET.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics and thrombotic risk of 149 Thai ET patients in a university hospital in Southern Thailand between 2002 and 2019. Thrombotic risk variables were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard regression. The Brier score, calibration plot, and Harrel concordance index (C-index) were used to evaluate the performance of the three models.
resultsWith a median follow-up of 5.2 years, there were a total of 28 thrombotic events in 26 patients. Age > 60 years was a significant prognostic factor for thrombosis in the multivariate Cox regression analysis. The Brier scores were 0.251, 0.273, and 0.276 in the conventional, IPSET-thrombosis, and revised IPSET-thrombosis models, respectively. The conventional model had optimal calibration and good discrimination (C-index, 0.67; 95%CI:0.55-0.79). The IPSET thrombosis (C-index 0.33; 95%CI:0.20-0.49) and revised IPSET thrombosis (C-index 0.31; 95%CI:0.18-0.44) models showed poor discrimination.
conclusionThe conventional model, which is based on age and history of thrombosis, is the best model to predict thrombotic risk in Thai ET patients. Further studies with a larger number of patients with thrombotic events are needed to validate the IPSET-thrombosis and revised IPSET-thrombosis models.
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.