ArticleOpen respiratory archives
Evaluation of the Khorana Predictive Thrombotic Risk and Thromboprophylaxis Score in Cancer Patients in a Third Level Hospital.
Article in Open respiratory archives. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the CHI-CAT score: a novel tool for assessing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism risk in China.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Pulmonary Embolism and Comorbidity.Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current clinical guidelines do not recommend the routine use of thromboprophylaxis in cancer primary unselected patients. Identifying cancer patients who could be beneficiaries of thrombotic prophylaxis is a real challenge. We aimed to analyse the application of Khorana score in cancer patients. We also tried to evaluate the prescription of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients at risk of venous thromboembolic disease (VTED). Methods: A retrospective observational study of survival of hospitalised patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE) at the Hospital Central de la Defensa from January 2009 to March 2018. They were stratified into tumour PE (TPE) and non-tumour PE (nTPE). A case-control study was also carried out by TPE patients and non PE cancer patients (nPEC). Results: 108 patients were diagnosed with TPE, 260 nTPE and 324 nPEC. Gynaecological tumours were the most frequent (23.1%), followed by lung, digestive and urological cancer (20.4% each) in the TPE group. Death risk was 1.9 times higher in cancer patients (95% CI: 1.23-2.8) ( Conclusions: There is an underutilisation of thromboprophylaxis in our cancer patients and mainly in those with high risk of VTED, as well as poor adherence to the Khorana score. More studies are needed to validate these findings and to optimise predictive strategies in the management of these patients.
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.