ReviewCureus2024
A Narrative Review of Scoring Methods in Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation: Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Utility.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Obstetrical disseminated intravascular coagulation: a case report and literature review].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a critical, life-threatening disorder characterized by widespread activation of the coagulation cascade, leading to microthrombi formation, consumption of clotting factors and platelets, and a paradoxically increased risk of bleeding. Accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial for effective management and improved patient outcomes. This narrative review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of various scoring systems used to assess DIC. We examine prominent systems, including the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) scoring system, the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine (JAAM) DIC criteria, and other regional or institutional criteria such as the Chinese DIC scoring system (CDSS). The review compares these systems based on their criteria, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy across different patient populations and discusses their strengths and limitations. Additionally, we explore the impact of these scoring systems on patient management and therapeutic decisions, identify challenges and limitations, and highlight emerging trends and future directions in DIC diagnosis. By providing a comprehensive analysis, this review aims to enhance understanding of DIC scoring methods and inform clinical practice to improve patient care.
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.