ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Identification of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Surgical Critically Ill Patients by Using the HIT Expert Probability Score: An Observational Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an integrated clinical-laboratory scoring system for accurate HIT diagnosis.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Postoperative Thrombocytopenia in Cardiac Surgery: Patterns, Differential Diagnosis and Management of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT).Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A retrospective analysis of the frequency of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in the intensive care unit at a tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.American journal of blood research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) remains a challenging diagnosis especially in surgical intensive care unit (SICU) patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate for the first time the diagnostic accuracy of the HIT Expert Probability (HEP) score in the early identification of HIT in SICU patients. Methods: The HEP and 4Ts scores were calculated in all patients with suspected HIT during their stay in our SICU. The diagnosis of HIT was finally confirmed (HIT+ group) or excluded (HIT− group) by an independent committee blinded to the HEP and 4Ts score values. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of a HEP score ≥ 5 for the diagnosis of HIT. The secondary outcome was the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the HEP and 4Ts scores in the diagnosis of HIT. Results: Respectively 6 and 113 patients were included in the HIT+ and HIT− groups. A HEP score value ≥ 5 had a sensitivity (95% confidence interval (95% CI)) of 1.00 (0.55−1.00), and a specificity (95% CI) of 0.92 (0.86−0.96). The AUC (95% CI) was significantly higher for the HEP score versus for the 4Ts score (0.967 (0.922−1.000) versus 0.707 (0.449−0.965); p = 0.035). Conclusions: A HEP score value < 5 could be helpful to rule out HIT in SICU patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.