Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38953050›Full record

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.

Katherine S Wilkinson, Andrew D Sparks, Mansour Gergi, Allen B Repp, Hanny Al-Samkari, Ryan Thomas, Nicholas S Roetker, Neil A Zakai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Katherine S WilkinsonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Andrew D SparksDepartment of Medical Biostatistics, Biomedical Statistics Research Core, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Mansour GergiDepartment of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Allen B ReppDepartment of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Hanny Al-SamkariDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ryan ThomasDepartment of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Nicholas S RoetkerChronic Disease Research Group, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Neil A ZakaiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

adultbleedinginpatientsrisk assessmentvenous thrombosis

Identifiers

PMID38953050
PMCPMC11215414

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.