ReviewCurrent opinion in hematology2025
Scoring systems to predict thrombotic complications in solid tumor patients.
Review in Current opinion in hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo explore the use of large datasets in predicting and managing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) by stratifying patients into risk groups. This includes evaluating current predictive models and identifying potential improvements to enhance clinical decision-making. RECENT
findingsCancer patients are at an elevated risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which significantly impacts mortality and quality of life. Traditional approaches to risk assessment fail to account for the procoagulant changes associated with cancer, making individualized risk prediction a challenge. Current clinical guidelines as per ASCO recommend risk assessment before chemotherapy and endorse thromboprophylaxis as a standard preventive measure. Since any cancer population is highly heterogeneous in terms of VTE risk, predicting the risk of CAT is an oncological challenge. To address this, different predictive models have been developed to stratify patients by risk, enabling targeted thromboprophylaxis. However, these models vary in accuracy and utility. The present review discusses the pros and cons of these different models. SUMMARY: The review examines existing CAT risk prediction models, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and diagnostic performance. It also identifies additional variables that could enhance these models to improve their effectiveness in guiding clinicians toward better risk stratification and treatment decisions for cancer patients.
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.