ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Development and internal validation of a simple clinical score for the estimation of the probability of deep vein thrombosis in outpatient emergency department patients.
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. It is linked to trial NCT02486445 (Rivaroxaban for Scheduled Work-up of Patients With Suspected Deep Venous Thrombosis), which is not on this 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.
Rivaroxaban for Scheduled Work-up of Patients With Suspected Deep Venous Thrombosis
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and evaluation of a risk prediction model for preoperative lower extremity deep vein thrombosis in orthopedic patients.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- External validation of the DAYS score for suspected deep vein thrombosis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wells score comprises subjective elements, making physicians reluctant to use Wells score or cause them to use it incorrectly. Objectives: To develop and internally validate a prediction score that is objective and simple for evaluating suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), with a safety comparable with that of Wells score. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis using data from the Ri-Schedule study (NCT02486445) involving suspected DVT patients at Østfold Hospital's Emergency Department, Norway (2015-2018). Candidate variables were identified through bootstrapping technique, with a confirmed DVT diagnosis as the outcome variable. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive values (PPV) were estimated and compared with the 2-tier Wells score. Results: Among 1312 patients (median age, 64 years [IQR, 52-73]; 55% women), 19.9% were diagnosed with DVT. Exploration of 30 variables identified tenderness along deep veins and previous venous thromboembolism as significant predictors (selection frequency >60% in 1000 bootstrapping samples). The derived score categorized 450 patients with 0 items as unlikely to have DVT, of whom 8.0% were diagnosed with DVT, compared with 8.2% in DVT unlikely category according to Wells score. Compared with Wells score, the derived score demonstrated sensitivity of 86.2 (95% CI, 81.4-90.2) vs 80.1 (95% CI, 74.7-84.8), specificity of 39.4 (95% CI, 36.4-42.4) vs 55.3 (95% CI, 52.2-58.3), NPV of 92.0 (95% CI, 89.4-94.0) vs 91.8 (95% CI, 89.7-93.5), and PPV of 26.1 (95% CI, 24.8-27.5) vs 30.8 (95% CI, 28.9-32.8). When incorporating D-dimer cutoff of <0.5 µg/mL, the derived score had sensitivity of 99.6 (95% CI, 97.9-99.9), specificity of 16.1 (95% CI, 13.1-18.4), NPV of 99.4 (95% CI, 96.0-99.9), and PPV of 22.8 (95% CI, 22.3-23.3). Conclusion: The derived DVT score, with 2 objective variables, had a comparable safety with that of the Wells score. However, an external validation is mandated prior to clinical use.
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.