Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38643438›Full record

ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2024

Comparison of the PADUA and IMPROVE scores in assessing venous thromboembolism risk in 42,257 medical inpatients in China.

Hou Yifang, Duan Jun, Yan Jingting, Shan Ying, Zhang Ping, Deng Xiaomei

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparative Analysis of Padua and Caprini Scores in Predicting Venous Thromboembolism Risk Among Nonagenarians: A Cross-Sectional Study From Rugao.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2025
    Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hou YifangOperating Room, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9556-5204
Duan JunMedical Records Department, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Yan JingtingClinical Research Academy, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Shan YingClinical Research Academy, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Zhang PingSchool of Nursing, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Deng XiaomeiGeneral Ward, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. dxmarilyn@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5324-0313
Peking University Shenzhen Hospital · CNSouthern Medical University · CN

Funding

Shenzhen Science and Technology Project JCYJ20190809111017163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major contributor to hospital mortality and disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) loss. Multiple guidelines recommend using the Padua or IMPROVE scores to stratify VTE risk in hospitalized medical patients. However, the IMPROVE score is not recommended in Chinese guidelines, and there is very little evaluation of its clinical application and effectiveness in the Chinese population. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of the Padua and IMPROVE scoring models for assessing VTE risk in Chinese medical inpatients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics and thrombotic risk of 42,257 medical inpatients at a tertiary hospital in Guangdong, China, between 2021 and 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess thrombotic risk factors. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, Area Under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were employed to evaluate the performance of the two models. Of the 42,257 patients included, 948 (2.24%) experienced VTE during hospitalization. According to the Padua score, 3,7513 (88.78%) of patients were considered low risk, while 4,744 (18.22%) were classified as high risk. The IMPROVE score identified 20,744 (49.09%) of patients as low risk, 20799(49.22%) as intermediate risk, and 714(1.69%) as high risk. The AUC for the Padua score was 0.735 (95% CI: 0.717-0.753), with a sensitivity of 49.4% and specificity of 89.6%. For the IMPROVE score, the AUC was 0.711 (95% CI: 0.693-0.729), with a sensitivity of 32.5% and specificity of 99.0%. The DeLong test, used to compare the AUCs, yielded a z-value of 1.886 with a P-value of 0.059, indicating no statistical difference. When assessing VTE risk in patients with stroke, cancer, nephrotic syndrome, and critical illness (ICU/CCU stay), both scoring models showed comparable predictive performance with AUCs ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Both the Padua score and IMPROVE score have good predictive ability for VTE events during hospitalization in medical patients. Among them, the IMPROVE score has objective assessment items, simpler operation, and more detailed risk stratification, which is beneficial for clinicians to take physical and pharmacological preventive measures at different levels.ChiCTR2200056903, February 22, retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

InpatientsVenous ThromboembolismAdultAgedChinaFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveGuidelinesIMPROVE scoreMedical inpatientsPadua scoreVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID38643438
OpenAlexW4394987346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.