ArticleJournal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa2025
The predictive value of risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism on gynaecological cancer patients.
Article in Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Associated Infections on the Clinical Course and Risk-Stratification Profile of Pulmonary Embolism: Comparative Analysis Using PESI, Wells, Padua, and IMPROVE Scores.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
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
Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a multifactorial disease. There are two main clinical entities that are associated with morbidity and mortality, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Our study aimed to compare the three risk assessment models (RAMs), Khorana, Caprini and Padua in terms of predicting VTE in gynaecologic oncology patients. Methods: Patients were retrospectively scored according to Caprini, Padua and Khorana scoring models to assess the risk for VTE. Accuracy analysis of risk assessment models was performed using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as the area under the curve of each model per patient. Results: The Caprini score has good sensitivity (80.0), a poor specificity (24.3), low positive predictive value (7.2) and good negative predictive value (94.3) (95% CI). The Khorana score has a poor sensitivity (30.0), a fair specificity (62.5), low positive predictive value (5.6) and good negative predictive value (92.4) (95% CI). The Padua score has an average sensitivity (60.0), a poor specificity (42.6), low positive predictive value (7.1) and good negative predictive value (93.5) (95% CI). The Caprini score had the overall best performance. Conclusion: Caprini score performed better and proved to be the best score. It has the potential to reduce mortality associated with VTE in gynaecological cancer patients. However, the Caprini score needs to be tested in the same population in a prospective study in a multicentre. Contribution: The results of this study prove to us that Caprini score is the best to be used in a South African setting.
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.