ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Impact of the VTE-PREDICT calculator on clinicians' decision making in fictional patients with venous thromboembolism: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 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.
- Managing patients with a history of arterial disease and new venous thromboembolism.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: After 3 months of anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE), the decision needs to be made whether to stop anticoagulation or extend treatment indefinitely. The VTE-PREDICT calculator can be used to estimate individual risks of VTE recurrence and bleeding to guide this decision. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of predicted individual risks of recurrence and bleeding on clinicians' decisions on anticoagulation duration and to assess usefulness of the VTE-PREDICT calculator. Methods: A randomized controlled trial and within-subject study was conducted among clinicians treating VTE patients. The clinicians were asked to complete an online survey containing 6 fictional case vignettes. Group A proposed anticoagulant duration for each case without additional information first and subsequently after seeing calculator-predicted risks (within-subject analysis). Group B was directly provided with calculator risks and proposed treatment duration for each case vignette (for comparison with group A results in a randomized controlled trial analysis). Then, group B received questions on usefulness and credibility of the calculator. Results: Forty-five clinicians were assigned to group A and 48 to B. Overall, group A did not propose different anticoagulation durations than group B. However, individual clinicians in group A changed proposed duration in 35% of the cases after seeing the calculator risks. The calculator was considered useful and credible by most clinicians. Conclusion: Overall, use of the VTE-PREDICT calculator did not affect proposed anticoagulation duration. However, individual clinicians frequently changed their proposed duration after using the calculator, especially for patients with high bleeding risk.
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.