Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37055175›Full record

ArticleOpen heart2023

External validation and updating of prediction models of bleeding risk in patients with cancer receiving anticoagulants.

E M Trinks-Roerdink, G J Geersing, Mew Hemels, I C van Gelder, F A Klok, M van Smeden, F H Rutten, S van Doorn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Cancer-Associated Atrial Fibrillation: Who, When, and How to Manage Antithrombotic Therapy.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

E M Trinks-RoerdinkDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands e.m.roerdink@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0535-9253
G J GeersingDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mew HemelsDepartment of Cardiology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
I C van GelderDepartment of Cardiology, UMCG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
F A KlokDepartment of Medicine - Thrombosis and Haemostasis, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M van SmedenDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
F H RuttenDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S van DoornDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatients with cancer are at increased bleeding risk, and anticoagulants increase this risk even more. Yet, validated bleeding risk models for prediction of bleeding risk in patients with cancer are lacking. The aim of this study is to predict bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with cancer.

methodsWe performed a study using the routine healthcare database of the Julius General Practitioners' Network. Five bleeding risk models were selected for external validation. Patients with a new cancer episode during anticoagulant treatment or those initiating anticoagulation during active cancer were included. The outcome was the composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding. Next, we internally validated an updated bleeding risk model accounting for the competing risk of death.

resultsThe validation cohort consisted of 1304 patients with cancer, mean age 74.0±10.9 years, 52.2% males. In total 215 (16.5%) patients developed a first major or CRNM bleeding during a mean follow-up of 1.5 years (incidence rate; 11.0 per 100 person-years (95% CI 9.6 to 12.5)). The c-statistics of all selected bleeding risk models were low, around 0.56. Internal validation of an updated model accounting for death as competing risk showed a slightly improved c-statistic of 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.70). On updating, only age and a history of bleeding appeared to contribute to the prediction of bleeding risk.

conclusionsExisting bleeding risk models cannot accurately differentiate bleeding risk between patients. Future studies may use our updated model as a starting point for further development of bleeding risk models in patients with cancer.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsFemaleHemorrhageHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnticoagulantsatrial fibrillationepidemiologypharmacologypharmacology, clinical

Identifiers

PMID37055175
PMCPMC10106080
OpenAlexW4365445440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.