ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Risk prediction model for thrombosis in leukemia patients: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
Thrombosis represents a significant complication in leukemia patients, associated with treatment interruption and reduced survival outcomes. Although multiple risk prediction models have been developed, their methodological quality and applicability remain uncertain. This review aims to evaluate existing risk prediction models for thrombosis in patients with leukemia. We conducted comprehensive literature searches across nine databases from the inception to August 4, 2025. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the CHARMS checklist and PROBAST tool. Of 1825 initially identified records, 14 studies comprising 16 prediction models were included. Development cohorts ranged from 102 to 1252 participants. Model discrimination measured by AUC/C-index varied between 0.641-0.917. Internal validation was performed in nine studies, while only one conducted external validation. Key predictors included central venous catheter placement, prior history of thrombosis, D-dimer levels, platelet count, white blood cell count, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, chemotherapy/radiotherapy, comorbidities, type of leukemia, use of hemostatic drugs, and age. All studies were rated high risk of bias, and five raised major concerns regarding applicability. Sensitivity analyses excluding chronic leukemia studies, excluding non-English publications and excluding dissertations yielded consistent overarching conclusions. In summary, current models often report moderate to good apparent discrimination, but are limited by methodological shortcomings and inadequate validation. All models should be considered exploratory and not ready for routine clinical use without prospective external validation. Future research should prioritize prospective, multicenter cohorts with standardized outcome adjudication and rigorous internal/external validation across diverse leukemia subtypes.
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.