ArticleBMC nursing2026
Accuracy of nurses' Caprini risk assessment for venous thromboembolism: a simulation-based observational study in China.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
Abstract
backgroundAccurate venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment using the Caprini Risk Score (CRS) is crucial for identifying high-risk patients and initiating preventive measures. While nurses are the primary assessors in many clinical settings, the complexity of the CRS poses significant challenges to implementation. Limited evidence exists regarding the actual precision of nurses’ scoring and the specific sources of error, which can directly compromise patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate nurses’ accuracy in applying the CRS and to identify factors and item domains associated with scoring errors.
methodsThis observational, single-center descriptive study was conducted in 2023 across eight inpatient wards at a tertiary hospital in Southwest China. A total of 213 nurses from internal medicine (including infectious diseases, rheumatology and immunology, communicable diseases, pain management, respiratory medicine, and comprehensive respiratory care) and surgical departments (thoracic surgery and ICU) performed CRS evaluations using standardized simulated cases.
resultsAmong the 213 participants, only 45 (21.13%) achieved full scoring accuracy. Chi-square tests revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) in accuracy based on experience, professional titles, and departments. Nurses with ≤ 5 years of experience showed the lowest accuracy (5.32%), while those with junior titles achieved 13.74%. Accuracy differed across departments, with rheumatology/immunology and the ICU showing lower accuracy than other wards (P < 0.05). Accuracy rates for key item domains - functional status, past medical history, and other high-risk factors were 43.66%, 40.85%, and 43.19%, respectively.
conclusionsNurses with ≤ 5 years of experience and junior titles require targeted VTE assessment training. Overall low accuracy indicates a risk of misclassification that may affect thromboprophylaxis decision-making. Enhanced training and clearer, culturally appropriate wording of the CRS translation, particularly for commonly confused items, are needed. Nursing managers should implement competency-focused training and quality monitoring to improve the reliability of CRS-based risk assessment. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.