ReviewClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Risk Scores in Venous Thromboembolism Guidelines of ESC, ACCP, and ASH: An Updated Review.
Review in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep vein thrombosis in severe community-acquired pneumonia patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis: Prevalence, risk factors, and outcome.Thrombosis journal · 2025Article
- Association between cumulative changes in the Wells score and the risk of stroke-associated pneumonia in patients with acute ischemic stroke: results from the REMISE study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Reassessing the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Events in Women.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Risk scores associated with VTE have been widely used in clinical practice. Among numerous scores published, those included in guidelines are usually typical risk scores which have been extensively validated and globally recognized. This review provides an updated overview of the risk scores associated with VTE endorsed by 3 guidelines which are highly recognized in the field of VTE including the European Society of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, and American Society of Hematology, focusing on the development, modification, validation, and comparison of these scores, to provide a comprehensive and updated understanding of all the classic risk scores associated with VTE to medical readers including but not limited to cardiologists, pulmonologists, hematologists, intensivists, physicians, surgeons, and researchers. Although each score recommended by these guidelines was more or less validated, there may still be room for further improvement. It may still be necessary to seek simpler, more practical, and more universally applicable VTE-related risk scores in the future.
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.