ArticleCureus2022
Development and Validation of a Risk Assessment Model for Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A nomogram for predicting hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of an ICU-Venous Thromboembolism Prediction Model Using Machine Learning Approaches: A Multicenter Study.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Patients with invasive mechanical ventilation may be at high risk of acquiring venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aim to develop risk assessment models for predicting the improvement of VTE in invasively ventilated patients. Methodology A total of 6,734 invasively ventilated patients enrolled from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III) database were used as input for model development and internal validation, while data from 168 patients from Nanfang Hospital were used for external validation. Logistic regression was performed based on predictive factors derived from least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis and logistic regression with backward selection to develop two Risk Assessment Models (RAM), namely, I and II, for the prediction of VTE, respectively. Model selection was performed by evaluation of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the goodness of fit with calibration curves, and decision curve analyses (DCA). Results RAM-I included prior history of VTE, in-hospital immobilization, infection, glucose, the use of antiplatelet, and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) as variables, while RAM-II included prior history of VTE, in-hospital immobilization, infection, ischemic stroke, glucose, the use of antiplatelet and APTT as variables. Compared with RAM-I and ICU-Venous Thromboembolism Score, RAM-II exhibited better discrimination in the training dataset (AUC = 0.826), internal validation dataset (AUC = 0.771), and external validation dataset (AUC = 0.770). Additionally, DCA demonstrated that RAM-II was clinically beneficial. Inspection of the calibration curves revealed good agreement between the predictions and observations. Conclusions A RAM for VTE in invasively ventilated patients was developed with reasonable performance.
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.