ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2023
Comparison among three predictive models for cancer-associated thromboembolism in a hispanic population.
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 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study we aimed to evaluate and compare the overall performance of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores as predictive scores for the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among ambulatory Hispanic patients with solid tumors. We included all outpatients with newly diagnosed solid tumors receiving systemic chemotherapy in Hospital San Juan Dios, San José, Costa Rica, from January to December 2021. For each patient the Khorana, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores were calculated at the beginning of treatment. The sixth-month cumulative incidence of VTE was estimated using the Fine & Gray competing risk model. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the performance of each predictive tool through the analysis of the c-statistic, sensitivity, and specificity. A total of 708 patients were included in the research. After a median follow-up of 8.13 months, the cumulative VTE incidence at six months was 4.45% (95%CI: 3.25-6.91%) for the overall population. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, these scores classified from 17.7 to 32.5% of all patients as high-risk for VTE. Patients belonging to the high-risk category of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores had significantly higher risk of VTE in comparison to low-risk patients (Khorana score: Hazard Ratio (HR): 2.66; 95%CI:1.20-5.89; p = 0.042; PROTECHT score: HR: 3.44; 95%CI:1.63-7.21; p = 0.001; CONKO score HR: 3.68; 95%CI:1.72-7.85; p = 0.001). The c-statistic of the ROC curve was: 0.62 (95%CI: 0.52-0.72), 0.62 (95%CI: 0.52-0.73), and 0.65 (95%CI: 0.56-0.76) for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores, respectively; with similar sensitivity (range: 67-70%) and specificity (range: 52-62%) among them. For Hispanic patients with solid tumors the Khorana, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores accurately categorize their risk of VTE. However, the overall discriminatory performance of these models remains poor (c-statistic from 0.62 to 0.65) for predicting all patients at risk for thromboembolic events.
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.