ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Validation of electronic health record-based International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding algorithms in a US health system.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Novel algorithms were developed to identify International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)-defined major and clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events using electronic health record (EHR) data. Objectives: We applied and validated these EHR-based algorithms in a large US integrated health system. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort and chart review study of adults with atrial fibrillation and ≥1 oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription between 2013 and 2021. EHR-based algorithms were applied to identify ISTH-defined major and CRNM bleeding from the first OAC fill until disenrollment, death, or June 2022, whichever occurred first. Through conditional sampling, 433 patients were selected for clinician chart review. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were calculated. Results: Among 62,106 adults (mean age, 72.6 years; 57.1% male), the ISTH major and CRNM bleeding event rates per the algorithms were 3.54 and 19.67 per 100 person-years, respectively, during a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86, 0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88, 0.95) for major bleeding, respectively, and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54, 0.76) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82, 0.90) for CRNM bleeding, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87, 0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89, 0.95) for major bleeding, respectively, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.44, 0.60) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90, 0.94) for CRNM bleeding, respectively. Conclusion: The EHR-based ISTH major bleeding algorithm demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, while the CRNM bleeding algorithm showed suboptimal sensitivity. The EHR-based ISTH algorithms may enhance understanding of OAC safety using real-world evidence.
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.