ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2025
Comparative evaluation of venous thromboembolic risk in urologic inpatients using different risk assessment models.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2025. 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.
- The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
- Incidence and Predictors of Venous Thromboembolism Following Major Urologic Cancer Surgery: Toward Risk-Stratified, Personalized Prophylaxis Strategies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Geriatric assessment-integrated prediction model for postoperative deep vein thrombosis in older adults undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionsThe process for determining thromboprophylaxis decisions in urologic surgery entails assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in comparison to the risk of bleeding. Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been created to systematically calculate an individual's risk of VTE. In our study, we evaluated the risk of VTE in urologic inpatients using two RAMs specifically designed for urology by the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA), the Caprini score, and the CHA2DS2-VASc score.
methodsThe study group consisted of 136 inpatients within the urology department. Data from medical records included information on various factors, such as age, gender, and body mass index, as well as personal and family history of the patients. The risk of VTE was determined using the RAMs provided by EAU and AUA, the Caprini score, and the CHA2DS2-VASc score.
resultsChemical prophylaxis was advised for 48 (35.3%) patients according to the EAU model, 47 patients (34.6%) according to the AUA model, 128 (94.1%) patients based on the Caprini score, and 80 (58.8%) patients according to the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and lack of post-surgery venous thromboembolic events recording.
conclusionsThe VTE RAMs developed by the EAU and AUA provide consistent recommendations for thromboembolism prophylaxis in urologic patients, while the Caprini model's strict adherence may lead to excessive prophylaxis recommendations. The EAU approach is user-friendly but urologists must judiciously weigh bleeding and VTE risks on an individual basis, ensuring optimal prophylaxis use.
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.