ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Risk prediction models for venous thromboembolism in stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate risk prediction models for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in stroke patients and to provide a reference for future model development and clinical research. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP, and SinoMed, to identify studies on VTE risk prediction models in stroke patients. Databases were searched from inception to September 1, 2025. Risk of bias and applicability of the prediction models were assessed using the PROBAST checklist. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled VTE incidence and the area under the curve (AUC) for model performance using Stata 17.0. Results: A total of 2,726 records were retrieved, and seven prediction models were included. Reported VTE incidence ranged from 9.8% to 38.9%, with AUC values between 0.781 and 0.978, indicating moderate to high apparent discriminative performance, however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the high risk of bias and lack of external validation. None of the seven included models underwent independent external validation, and according to PROBAST, all included models were judged to be at high overall risk of bias. The pooled VTE incidence was 20.8% (95% CI: 14.7%-27.0%), and the pooled AUC across six models was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81-0.93). Conclusion: Among the VTE risk prediction models for stroke patients included in this study, although some models demonstrated favorable predictive performance, all models were judged to be at high risk of bias according to PROBAST. Future research should prioritize the validation and refinement of existing models or the development of new models with more rigorous methodological design, in order to better support clinical decision-making for patients with stroke. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024603132, PROSPERO CRD42024603132.
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.