SynthesisCardiology2025
Predictive Performance of HAS-BLED Score in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and history of cancer face unique bleeding risks, complicating the applicability of standard bleeding risk scores like HAS-BLED. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of HAS-BLED in predicting bleeding events in this high-risk population.
methodsThe MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched from 1st of January 2010 to 30th of November 2024 for relevant studies using keywords, such as "AF" "cancer" "bleeding," and "HAS-BLED." Data on C-statistics were extracted to assess the predictive performance of HAS-BLED score.
resultsOur analysis included seven retrospective cohort studies, recruiting a total of 436,102 patients. The quality of the included studies was deemed acceptable for analysis. The reported C-statistics for HAS-BLED score varied widely across studies, ranging from 0.45 to 0.77. Subgroup analyses demonstrated moderate discrimination in patients with breast cancer (0.56-0.80), prostate cancer (0.58-0.72), and lung cancer (0.59-0.80), while poorer performance was observed in hematological malignancies (0.45-0.70) and in anticoagulated patients (pooled C-statistic = 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.56). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the overall analysis and most subgroups (I2 > 90%), except for the anticoagulated subgroup. A sensitivity analysis excluding the largest study reduced heterogeneity and improved funnel plot symmetry, indicating that study size contributed to variability in HAS-BLED performance.
conclusionThe HAS-BLED score has shown variable predictive abilities in AF patients with cancer ranging from poor to good, with notable heterogeneity across studies secondary to various contributing factors. This emphasizes the need for individualized risk assessment tailored to the unique characteristics of cancer patients to effectively guide clinical decision-making.
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.