ArticleBlood2025
Multisite Validation of a Venous Thrombosis Risk Model in Critically Ill Children Through the CHAT Consortium.
Article in Blood, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Critically ill children have a high risk of hospital associated venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE). Developing a validated risk assessment model (RAM) to identify children who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis is essential. We aimed to prospectively validate the Children's Healthcare Advancements in Thrombosis (CHAT) intensive care unit (ICU) VTE RAM containing five clinically significant variables: CVC, immobility, congenital heart disease, autoimmune or inflammatory conditions and hospital stay of ≥3 days in a multicenter cohort study. Randomly selected patients aged 0-21 years admitted to a pediatric ICU (PICU) at 32 institutions were monitored via medical record review for HA-VTE. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Calibration was assessed using calibration plots. Complete case and imputed analyses were performed and model risk scores were generated along with post-test probability. The RAM was validated in 4,674 patients with an AUROC of 0.71 [95% CI:0.64-0.78], calibration slope of 1.0 (95% CI:0.87-1.14) and intercept of 1.81x10-5 (95% CI: -5.40x10-3-5.44x10- 3). The AUROC for the imputed model was 0.69 (95% CI:0.68-0.70) with the calibration slope of 1.03 (95% CI: 0.85-1.21) and intercept of 1.22x10-3 (95% CI: -7.80x10-3-5.36x10-3). Calculated risk scores were 1 or 2 for each variable in the RAM with a total risk score ranging from 0 to 6. The estimated probability for developing HA-VTE ranged from 1% to 17.4% depending on the total score. In conclusion, the CHAT-ICU RAM has good discriminatory validity, is well-calibrated and reliably identifies children in the PICU at high and low risk of HA-VTE.
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.