ArticleHamostaseologie2023
Comparison of Performances among Four Bleeding-Prediction Scores in Elderly Cancer Patients with Venous Thromboembolism.
Article in Hamostaseologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Lung Cancer with Pulmonary Embolism: Evidence-based Progress in Anticoagulation Assessment and Management].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performances of RIETE, VTE-BLEED, SWITCO65 + , and Hokusai-VTE scores for predicting major bleeding events in hospitalized elderly cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) have not been evaluated. This study validated the performances of these scoring systems in a cohort of elderly cancer patients with VTE. Between June 2015 and March 2021, a total of 408 cancer patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with acute VTE were consecutively enrolled. The overall rates of in-hospital major bleeding and clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) were 8.3% (34/408) and 11.8% (48/408), respectively. RIETE score could categorize patients with increasing rate of major bleeding and CRB into low-/intermediate- and high-risk categories (7.1 vs. 14.1%,
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.