Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39927484›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in hematology2025

Scoring systems to predict thrombotic complications in solid tumor patients.

Swati Sharma, Sumit Sahni, Silvio Antoniak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Swati SharmaUNC Blood Research Center, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Sumit SahniSchool of Open Learning, University of Delhi, Delhi, India.
Silvio AntoniakUNC Blood Research Center, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

PAR1 as a Therapeutic Target in Doxorubicin-induced CardiotoxicityR01HL148432 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ANTONIAK, SILVIO · 2020 to 2023
$2.3M
Inhibition of PAR2 as therapeutic approach to enhance anti-viral immune responsesR01HL142799 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ANTONIAK, SILVIO · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL142799NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL148432
6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsVenous ThromboembolismHumansRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID39927484
PMCPMC11949696

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.