ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Validation of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) risk scores for venous thromboembolism and bleeding in an independent population.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should we focus on sustainable thromboprophylaxis and avoid overuse of low-molecular-weight heparins?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Development and validation of risk models for hospital-acquired bleeding in medical inpatients: the Medical Inpatients Thrombosis and Hemostasis (MITH) study.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2026Article
- Risk factors for venous thrombosis after discharge from medical hospitalizations: the Medical Inpatient Thrombosis and Hemostasis study.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2025Article
- Inpatient pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in the antepartum period: an argument for risk-based thromboprophylaxis.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2025Review
- Venous thromboembolism risk models in hospitalized medical patients: the time for implementation, not never-ending development.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Authors' response to "Venous Thromboembolism Risk Models in Hospitalized Medical Patients: The Time for Implementation, Not Never-Ending Development".Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple guidelines recommend assessment of bleeding and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in adult medical inpatients to inform prevention strategies. There is no agreed-upon method for VTE and bleeding risk assessment. Objectives: To validate the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) VTE and bleeding risk scores in an independent population. Methods: In this retrospective study, we calculated the IMPROVE VTE and bleeding risk scores in medical inpatients admitted between 2010 and 2019 at the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC). Patients were followed for in-hospital bleeding events while hospitalized and VTE events while hospitalized and for 3 months after discharge. We assessed calibration of the risk models by comparing the observed incidence of events in the UVMMC and IMPROVE populations across the published risk categories. We also assessed performance of the IMPROVE risk factors after refitting the models in the UVMMC population. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: VTE occurred in 270 (1.1%) of 23,873 admissions, with 92 (34%) occurring during admission, and bleeding occurred in 712 (4.7%) of 15,240 admissions. When the IMPROVE-VTE risk factors were refitted to the UVMMC data, the AUC was 0.64. When the IMPROVE bleeding risk factors were refitted to the UVMMC data, the AUC was 0.67. The IMPROVE-VTE score tended to overestimate risk at higher scores, and the IMPROVE bleeding score underestimated risk at lower scores and overestimated risk at higher scores. Conclusion: While the refitted IMPROVE VTE and bleeding risk scores had reasonable model fit, the scores were poorly calibrated and did not reliably identify or differentiate patients at risk for VTE and bleeding. Different methods are needed for risk assessment of medical inpatients for VTE and bleeding risk.
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.