ArticleThrombosis journal2025
D-dimer to fibrinogen ratio as a marker for acute cerebral venous thrombosis.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of the early D-dimer/fibrinogen ratio in critically ill patients requiring vascular surgery: a retrospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Predictive Value of D-Dimer to Fibrinogen Ratio for Unfavorable Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Intravenous Thrombolysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite D-dimer to fibrinogen ratio (DFR) being reported as a prognostic factor for cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), we note some concerns about the misused terminology (prognostic versus predictive), potential variability in D-dimer and fibrinogen assays that may impact the reliability and utility of DFR. From the statistical aspect, its validity was not adequately ensured due to inappropriate methods (inability to address multicollinearity, confounding, and multiple comparisons) and lack of validation for unvalidated discrimination cut-offs. The prognostic value of DFR was not clinically or statistically justified, given its poor-to-acceptable discrimination. Finally, an unexpectedly positive association between venous cerebral infarction and non-severe CVT suggests possible issues in data labelling, reference value, uncontrolled confounders/biases, or overadjustment. Addressing these issues would strengthen the reliability, validity, and utility of DFR in CVT prognosis.
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.