ArticleJournal of intensive care2024
Hemorrhages and risk factors in patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis in a respiratory critical care unit: a secondary data analysis of a cohort study.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02213978 (A Clinical Cohort Study of Safety and Effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Critical Ill Patients), which is not on this 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.
A Clinical Cohort Study of Safety and Effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Critical Ill Patients
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Early Prediction of Sepsis-Related Coagulopathy: A Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Scoring Systems in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Risk factors for bleeding and thrombotic complications during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in adults based on the MIMIC-IV database.American journal of translational research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo verify whether the bleeding risk assessment guidelines from the 9th American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) are prognostic for respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) patients and to explore risk factors for hemorrhages, we conducted a secondary data analysis based on our previously published cohort study of venous thromboembolism. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a secondary data analysis on the single-center prospective cohort from our previous study. Patients admitted to the RICU at Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital from August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 were included and followed up until discharge.
resultsThe study enrolled 931 patients, of which 715 (76.8%) were at high risk of bleeding, while the remaining were at low risk. Of the total, 9.2% (86/931) suffered major bleeding, and no significant difference was found between the two risk groups (p = 0.601). High-risk patients had poor outcomes, including higher mortality and longer stays. Independent risk factors for major bleeding were APACHE II score ≥ 15; invasive pulmonary aspergillosis; therapeutic dose of anticoagulants; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and continuous renal replacement therapy. Blood transfusion not related to bleeding appeared to be an independent protective factor for major bleeding (OR 0.099, 95% CI 0.045-0.218, p < 0.001).
conclusionBleeding risk assessment models from the 9th ACCP guidelines may not be suitable for patients in RICU. Building a bleeding risk assessment model that is suitable for patients in all RICUs remains a challenge. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02213978.
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.