ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2025
Predictors for future bleeding in bleeding disorder of unknown cause.
Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC) is increasingly recognized as a common diagnosis among adult patients with mild to moderate bleeding symptoms and is reflective of unremarkable hemostatic tests despite a clinically relevant bleeding tendency. While extensive clinical and basic research has been conducted on the bleeding phenotype and underlying mechanisms of BDUC, great uncertainty remains regarding the long-term risk for spontaneous bleeding and the bleeding risk after hemostatic challenges. Currently available data suggest that a substantial portion of BDUC patients continue to experience spontaneous bleeding symptoms, such as easy bruising, epistaxis, and heavy menstrual bleeding. Risk factors associated with the persistence of these symptoms include the presence of the respective symptom prior to the BDUC diagnosis and a higher baseline bleeding score. Furthermore, a large proportion of BDUC patients report bleeding complications after surgery or child delivery prior to initial investigations. Patients with prior bleeding complications after such events, patients with blood group O, and patients who did not receive hemostatic prophylaxis demonstrate an increased risk for postinterventional bleeding during follow-up. Although BDUC remains a diagnosis of exclusion, accumulating data underscore the need to recognize it as a potentially persistent clinically relevant condition. Future studies should focus on refining diagnostic algorithms, investigating underlying mechanisms, and developing predictive tools for bleeding risk to improve individualized management strategies.
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.