ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2024
Generalizability of COBRA: A Parsimonious Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Model.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2024. 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.
- Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment in Inpatient and Ambulatory Otolaryngology Surgical Patients.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionStandardized use of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment models (RAMs) in surgical patients has been limited, in part due to the cumbersome workflow addition required to use available models. The COBRA score-capturing cancer diagnosis, (old) age, body mass index, race, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score-has been reported as a potentially automatable VTE RAM that circumvents the cumbersome workflow addition that most RAMs represent. We aimed to test the ability of the COBRA model to effectively risk-stratify patients across various populations.
methodsPatients were included from the 2014-2019 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Participant Use Data File for two hospitals, representing colorectal, endocrine, breast, transplant, plastic, and general surgery services. COBRA score was calculated for each patient using preoperative characteristics. We calculated negative predictive value (NPV) for VTE outcomes and compared the COBRA score to NSQIP's expected VTE rate for all patients, between the two hospitals, and between subspecialty service lines.
resultsOf the 10,711 patients included, those with COBRA <4 (31%) had projected median VTE rate of 0.21% (interquartile range, 0.09-0.68%; mean, 0.54%). Patients with higher scores (69%) had median rate of 0.88% (0.26-2.07%; 1.46%); relative rate 2.7. The median projected VTE rates for patients identified as low risk were 0.21% and 0.16% and as high risk were 0.87% and 0.89% at hospitals one and 2, respectively. The median projected VTE rates for patients identified as low risk were 0.17%, 0.61%, and 0.08% and as high risk were 0.52%, 1.43%, and 0.18% among general, colorectal, and endocrine surgery patients, respectively. COBRA had NPV of 0.995 and sensitivity of 0.871 as compared to NPV 0.997 and sensitivity 0.857 of the NSQIP model.
conclusionsThe COBRA score is concordant with the traditional gold standard NSQIP VTE RAM and demonstrates interhospital and service-specific generalizability, although performance was limited in especially low-risk patients. The model adequately risk-stratifies surgical patients preoperatively, potentially providing clinical decision support for perioperative workflows.
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.