Observational studyHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2024
Evaluating the impact of the self-BAT screening tool on patient outcomes: Results of the let's talk period project.
Observational study in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationships between bleeding assessment tools (ISTH-BAT, Self-BAT) and quality of life in patients with bleeding symptoms.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of bleeding disorder of unknown cause: how many tests are enough to diagnose BDUC?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025Review
- Evaluating the impact of the self-BAT screening tool on patient outcomes: Results of the let's talk period project.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2024Observational
- Validating the Online Self-Administered Bleeding Assessment Tool (Self-BAT) as a Screening Tool for Bleeding Disorders.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of HemophiliaArticle
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
introductionOne of the many challenges in diagnosing bleeding disorders is distinguishing between normal and abnormal bleeding symptoms. Letstalkperiod.ca is an educational website that includes an online self-administered bleeding assessment tool (Self-BAT) which is a validated screening tool that enables patients to independently determine their bleeding scores (BS).
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes for those referred with an abnormal Self-BAT BS compared to those referred without the prior use of the Self-BAT.
methodsThis was a retrospective, observational study. After obtaining REB approval, chart review was performed for patients evaluated for a suspected bleeding disorder in a tertiary care centre between 2016 and 2023.
results351 patients (310 female) were identified for inclusion with a mean age of 41 years. Of these patients, 30 were referred for a positive/abnormal Self-BAT BS and the remainder were referred for other reasons. Patients referred for a positive Self-BAT BS required interventions for their bleeding symptoms more often (73.3% vs. 36.7%, p ≤ .001). Though they were not diagnosed with an inherited bleeding disorder more often (6.7% vs. 10.7%, p = .754), patients referred for a positive self-BAT were more likely to be diagnosed with a bleeding disorder when the definition was expanded to include bleeding disorder of unknown cause (56.7% vs. 31.9%, p = .008).
conclusionResults of this study suggest that the Self-BAT at letstalkperiod.ca can be a useful tool for patients and physicians to identify those needing referral to tertiary haematology clinics for evaluation and management of bleeding symptoms.
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.