ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2023
Exploring the Villalta scale to capture postthrombotic syndrome using alternative approaches: A subanalysis of the ATTRACT trial.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Untangling profiles of postthrombotic syndrome using unsupervised machine learning.Blood advances · 2025Trial
- Venous mechanical thrombectomy for deep vein thrombosis in patients with cancer: a single-center prospective study.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2026Article
- Prevention of the Postthrombotic Syndrome: Where Do We Stand?Seminars in interventional radiology · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Clinical trials that evaluated interventions to prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) used the Villalta scale (VS) to define PTS, but there is a lack of consistency in its use. Objectives: This study aimed to improve the ability to identify patients with clinically meaningful PTS after DVT in participants of the ATTRACT trial. Methods: We conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis of 691 patients from the ATTRACT study, a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of pharmacomechanical thrombolysis to prevent PTS in proximal deep vein thrombosis. We compared 8 VS approaches to classify patients with or without PTS in terms of their ability to discriminate between those with poorer vs better venous disease-specific quality of life (Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study Quality of Life [VEINES-QOL]) between 6- and 24-months follow-up. The difference in the average area under the fitted curve of VEINES-QOL scores between PTS and no PTS ( Results: For any PTS (a single VS score ≥5), approaches 1 to 3 had similar Conclusion: A single VS score of ≥ 5 reliably distinguishes patients with clinically meaningful PTS as assessed by impact on QOL and is preferred because of greater convenience (only one assessment needed). Alternative methods to define PTS (ie, adjusting for CVI) do not improve the scale's ability to identify clinically meaningful PTS.
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.