ArticleJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2026
The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk-Stratified Thromboembolic and Bleeding Outcomes Following Sleeve Gastrectomy Under Uniform Extended Enoxaparin Prophylaxis.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Evolution of the Caprini risk assessment score: 1991 to present: A living risk assessment tool.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to characterize the contemporary academic landscape surrounding the Caprini venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment model (RAM), including its application patterns, reported performance, evolving scholarly perspectives, and dominant refinement strategies.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2025, using terms including "Caprini score," "venous thromboembolism," and "risk assessment." Eligible studies reported on the validation, application, or modification of the Caprini RAM in adult patients. Data on study characteristics, predictive performance metrics (eg, area under the curve [AUC]), author conclusions, and model refinement details were extracted.
resultsFrom 754 identified records, 275 studies met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of 275 studies with codable author perspectives revealed a distribution of supportive (113 studies; 41.1%), neutral (96 studies; 34.9%), and critical (66 studies; 24.0%) stances. Fifty-two studies providing paired AUC data reported a mean baseline Caprini score AUC of 0.702 (standard deviation [SD], 0.104), compared with a mean AUC of 0.832 (SD, 0.080) for refined or new models. The mean AUC improvement was 0.130 (SD, 0.117), with a median improvement of 0.105 (interquartile range, 0.106); improvements were observed in 98.1% of these comparisons. Critical perspectives frequently cited poor accuracy in specific populations (eg, medical inpatients) and operational complexity. In response, 111 studies proposed refinements categorized into four domains: integration of biomarkers (33 studies), development of specialty-specific/simplified models (45 studies), application of artificial intelligence/machine learning (23 studies), and optimization of assessment processes (30 studies).
conclusionsThis review quantifies a fragmented scholarly discourse on the Caprini RAM, reflecting its validated utility in certain contexts alongside recognized limitations driving extensive model refinement. The significant performance gains reported for refined models, particularly in specialties where the original score underperforms, highlight the ongoing evolution of VTE risk assessment toward more precise and context-adapted tools.
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.