ArticleHeliyon2023
Comparison of risk assessments for venous thromboembolism during the puerperium.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospitalized medical patients: comparative evidence, implementation challenges, and future directions.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the predictive value of different risk assessment methods for puerperium venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: This study included 55 women with and 165 women without puerperal VTE. Using the cases, 11 assessment methods were compared. Results: The area under the curve (AUC) value of the 11 assessments was highest for the modified Caprini risk assessment model for pregnancy (a modified risk scoring method from Caprini, AUC = 0.805). Pairwise comparison of the AUC values of the 11 assessment methods indicated no significant difference among the five methods with AUC values > 0.7. Among them, the modified Caprini, the risk scoring method recommended by the Swedish Guidelines (Swedish method), and the risk scoring method recommended by the Shanghai consensus (Shanghai method) performed better than the other six methods with AUC values < 0.7 (P < 0.05). The sensitivities of the five methods for predicting a high risk of VTE were 69.09-94.55% and the specificities were 25.45-77.58%. The sensitivity of the modified Caprini was higher than those of the risk management method from the Chinese consensus (Chinese consensus method), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists risk assessment scale (RCOG), and Swedish method (P < 0.05), but the specificity was only 25.45%. No significant difference in sensitivity was detected among the Swedish, Shanghai, RCOG, and Chinese consensus methods, whereas the specificity of the Swedish method was higher than that of the Shanghai, RCOG, and Chinese consensus methods. Conclusion: The predictive value of different risk assessment methods for puerperium VTE varies greatly. Considering the sensitivity and specificity, the Swedish method may have better clinical application value among the 11 methods.
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.