ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in surgical inpatients: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06502600 (A Comprehensive Analysis of Factors Influencing Adverse Postoperative Outcomes in Hospitalized Surgical Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Comprehensive Analysis of Factors Influencing Adverse Postoperative Outcomes in Hospitalized Surgical Patients
Who cites it
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate risk assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients.
backgroundVTE significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality among surgical inpatients, with the postoperative period being particularly vulnerable. Accurate risk assessment is essential for guiding thromboprophylaxis. Although various RAMs have been developed, their comparative effectiveness in surgical populations remains unclear.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study, SURG-VTE, was conducted across four centers from 2020 to 2022. This study evaluated the predictive performance of six RAMs: Caprini, Padua, Wells, Geneva, Autar, and IMPROVE scores. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic VTE. The association between RAMs and VTE was examined using logistic regression analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess each model's discrimination. Calibration was assessed using the GiViTI calibration belt, while overall performance was quantified by the Brier score. Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate the clinical utility of the RAMs. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to further assess the models' performance.
resultsOf the 4851 surgical inpatients, 826 (17.0%) experienced VTE, with significant differences in VTE rates between high- and low-risk groups as classified by most RAMs. However, the overall discriminative performance of the RAMs was poor, with AUCs ranging from 0.594 for the Geneva score to 0.713 for the Padua score. Sensitivity was highest for the Autar score (70.5%) and specificity for the Wells score (99.2%). The clinical utility of RAMs was further questioned as the positive net benefit was suboptimal for all models. Similar results were observed in sensitivity and subgroup analyses.
conclusionsWhile RAMs can distinguish between high- and low-risk groups for VTE, but show poor discrimination, limited precision, and suboptimal calibration (except IMPROVE), suggesting the need for more reliable and clinically relevant VTE risk prediction strategies in surgical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT06502600.
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.