Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36223963›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review.

Abdullah Pandor, Jahnavi Daru, Beverley J Hunt, Gill Rooney, Jean Hamilton, Mark Clowes, Steve Goodacre, Catherine Nelson-Piercy, Sarah Davis

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Venous thromboembolism in pregnancy: A silent threat.Case reports in women's health · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Risk Stratification and Safety Profile of Pharmacological Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Postpartum Women Following Cesarean Section: A Comparative Evaluation.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Abdullah PandorScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK a.pandor@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2552-5260
Jahnavi DaruInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5816-2609
Beverley J HuntGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4709-0774
Gill RooneyScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8388-9444
Jean HamiltonScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3326-9842
Mark ClowesScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5582-9946
Steve GoodacreScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0803-8444
Catherine Nelson-PiercyGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9311-1196
Sarah DavisScHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6609-4287
University of Sheffield · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

designSystematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis.

resultsSeventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively.

conclusionsAvailable data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221094.

Indexed as

Venous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsBiasFemaleHumansPostpartum PeriodPregnancyPrognosisRisk AssessmentAnticoagulantsAnticoagulationHAEMATOLOGYMaternal medicineOBSTETRICS

Identifiers

PMID36223963
PMCPMC9562726
OpenAlexW4304808250

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.