ReviewResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
R
Review in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Thromboprophylaxis After ACL Reconstruction: Controversies and Future Challenges.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- From body size to body composition: mechanisms linking obesity to venous thromboembolism.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
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
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant global health concern, with >1 million cases annually in the United States, making it a leading cause of preventable hospital-related deaths. Advances in genetic research, particularly genome-wide association studies, have demonstrated the polygenic nature of VTE by identifying numerous single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with susceptibility. The polygenic risk score (PRS), which aggregates the effects of multiple single-nucleotide polymorphisms, has emerged as a valuable tool for improving VTE risk assessment. Recent studies have demonstrated that PRS significantly improves VTE risk prediction beyond traditional clinical factors. Integrating genetic and clinical data enhances predictive accuracy, with individuals at high risk identified by PRS showing nearly 8 times the VTE risk of those at low risk. Additionally, PRS models have been developed to predict VTE risk in various predisposing conditions, including malignancies, cardiometabolic disorders, and pulmonary hypertension. These findings indicate that PRS could inform thromboprophylaxis decisions for high-risk patients. Further evidence indicates that PRS improves VTE risk prediction, even in individuals without conventional risk factors, such as family history or lifestyle contributors. The future of PRS in VTE risk stratification is promising, offering refined risk assessment, optimized anticoagulation management, and tailored thromboprophylaxis. However, challenges persist, including the development of multiancestry PRS models to enhance predictive accuracy across diverse populations. Continued research and validation will be essential to unlocking the full clinical potential of PRS in VTE management.
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.