ReviewThrombosis journal2026
Diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for predicting postpartum venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Thrombosis journal, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostpartum women are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Existing risk scores, such as RCOG and Caprini, rely on clinical factors alone and may lack accuracy. D-dimer, a widely used biomarker for VTE in non-pregnant populations, may improve postpartum risk prediction, but evidence remains inconsistent.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CBM was performed through July 31, 2025. Studies assessing D-dimer alone for postpartum VTE were included. Data were extracted to construct 2 × 2 tables, and pooled estimates were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model.
resultsSix studies (14,024 women; 193 VTE cases), all from mainland China, were included. D-dimer cut-offs varied widely (0.56–5.55 mg/L). The pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.63–0.93) and specificity was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.42–0.87). The pooled PLR was 2.61, NLR 0.26, and DOR 10.00. The SROC curve yielded an AUC of 0.84, indicating moderate diagnostic accuracy. Leave-one-out analysis confirmed robustness.
conclusionD-dimer shows moderate accuracy for predicting postpartum VTE and may be useful as an adjunct to clinical models, especially in resource-limited settings. However, heterogeneous cut-offs and restriction to Chinese populations limit generalizability. Larger multicenter studies are needed.
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.