ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
External Validation of the IMPROVE Risk Score for Predicting Bleeding in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 patients are at increased risk of thrombosis and bleeding, but no standardized bleeding risk assessment tool has been recommended.
objectiveThis study evaluates the predictive value of the IMPROVE Bleeding Risk Score (BRS) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
designA multicenter, prospective cohort of 3,886 hospitalized COVID-19 patients across six tertiary hospitals in China between December 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023.
participantsPatients were objectively diagnosed with COVID-19 by pathogen or antibody detection and followed for 90 days. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were major bleeding (MB) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). We evaluated the IMPROVE BRS predictive performance using hazard ratios (HRs), positive and negative predictive values, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calibration. KEY
resultsAmong 3,886 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (median age 74, IQR 62-84), 42 MB (1.1%) and 47 CRNMB (1.2%) events occurred within 90 days. The IMPROVE BRS performed well in predicting MB events, with an AUC of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) at 90 days. Calibration plots indicated good calibration. High-risk patients had a significantly higher bleeding risk than low-risk patients, even after adjusting for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis (MB: adjusted HR 6.63, 95% CI 3.62-12.15; CRNMB: adjusted HR 3.69, 95% CI 2.04-6.71). Subgroup analysis indicated that LMWH thromboprophylaxis significantly increased MB risk in elderly patients with high bleeding risk (14 days: adjusted HR 5.45, 95% CI 1.15-25.94; 30 days: adjusted HR 4.16, 95% CI 1.11-15.53).
conclusionsThe IMPROVE BRS effectively predicted MB risk in COVID-19 patients and provided valuable guidance for LMWH thromboprophylaxis in elderly patients. Further research is needed to validate its applicability in different populations and refine threshold values for improved predictive accuracy.
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.