SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2024
Accuracy of the COMPASS-CAT thrombosis risk assessment scale in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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.
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.
- Development and validation of venous thrombosis risk prediction model and scale for lung cancer patients in intensive care unit based on interpretable machine learning.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Emerging Insights of Management of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of the COMPASS-CAT tool in predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) among cancer patients.
methodsRelevant studies were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, OVID, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP database from their inception up to April 19, 2023. The quality of studies was appraised using the diagnostic test accuracy study bias assessment tool (QUADAS-2). Quantitative analysis was performed using Stata MP 17.0.
resultsThirteen studies involving 8,665 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated that the COMPASS-CAT score had a pooled sensitivity of 0.76 [95%CI (0.61, 0.86)], specificity of 0.67 [95%CI (0.52, 0.79)], positive likelihood ratio of 2.3 [95%CI (1.7, 3.1)], negative likelihood ratio of 0.36 [95%CI (0.23, 0.54)], diagnostic odds ratio of 6 [95%CI (4, 10)], and an area under the Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) of 0.77 [95%CI (0.74, 0.81)]. Funnel plots indicated no publication bias. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis suggested that country and diagnostic setting might be potential sources of heterogeneity. The sensitivity of the COMPASS-CAT assessment tool in international outpatient settings was 0.94 with an AUC of 0.86, while in domestic inpatient settings, the sensitivity was 0.65 with an AUC of 0.78.
conclusionThe COMPASS-CAT score had a certain diagnostic value for VTE in cancer patients and can effectively identify patients at risk of VTE. Most studies focus on patients with lung cancer. Future research should investigate more tumor types, and high-quality, large-sample, multi-center prospective studies on larger populations with cancers are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38981978What 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.