Dataset Information

Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT: Multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients have been developed. To inform the 2018 American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews to identify and summarize evidence related to RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We searched Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database, Medline, and Embase from 2005 through June 2017 and then updated the search in January 2020 to identify systematic reviews that included RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We conducted study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment (using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews [ROBIS] tool) independently and in duplicate. We described the characteristics of the reviews and their included studies, and compared the identified RAMs using narrative synthesis. Of 15 348 citations, we included 2 systematic reviews, of which 1 had low risk of bias. The reviews included 19 unique studies reporting on 15 RAMs. Seven of the RAMs were derived using individual patient data in which risk factors were included based on their predictive ability in a regression analysis. The other 8 RAMs were empirically developed using consensus approaches, risk factors identified from a literature review, and clinical expertise. The RAMs that have been externally validated include the Caprini, Geneva, IMPROVE, Kucher, and Padua RAMs. The Padua, Geneva, and Kucher RAMs have been evaluated in impact studies that reported an increase in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates. Our findings informed the ASH guidelines. They also aim to guide health care practitioners in their decision-making processes regarding appropriate individual prophylactic management.

SUBMITTER: Darzi AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7556144 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndividual studies have reported widely variable rates for VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Research questionWhat is the incidence of VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with COVID-19?MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, 15 standard sources and COVID-19-specific sources were searched between January 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, with no restriction according to language. Incidence estimates were pooled by using random effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was evaluated by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed by using the Begg and Egger tests.ResultsThe pooled incidence was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.4-20.9) for VTE, 12.1% (95% CI, 8.4-16.4) for DVT, 7.1% (95% CI, 5.3-9.1) for pulmonary embolism (PE), 7.8% (95% CI, 2.6-15.3) for bleeding, and 3.9% (95% CI, 1.2-7.9) for major bleeding. In subgroup meta-analyses, the incidence of VTE was higher when assessed according to screening (33.1% vs 9.8% by clinical diagnosis), among patients in the ICU (27.9% vs 7.1% in the ward), in prospective studies (25.5% vs 12.4% in retrospective studies), and with the inclusion of catheter-associated thrombosis/isolated distal DVTs and isolated subsegmental PEs. The highest pooled incidence estimate of bleeding was reported for patients receiving intermediate- or full-dose anticoagulation (21.4%) and the lowest in the only prospective study that assessed bleeding events (2.7%).InterpretationAmong hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the overall estimated pooled incidence of VTE was 17.0%, with higher rates with routine screening, inclusion of distal DVT, and subsegmental PE, in critically ill patients and in prospective studies. Bleeding events were observed in 7.8% of patients and were sensitive to use of escalated doses of anticoagulants and nature of data collection. Additional studies are required to ascertain the significance of various thrombotic events and to identify strategies to improve patient outcomes.Trial registryPROSPERO; No.: CRD42020198864; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Project description:BackgroundOur objectives were to critically appraise and summarise the current evidence for the effectiveness of using cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scoring (total risk assessment - TRA) in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD compared with standard care with regards to patients outcomes, clinical risk factor levels, medication prescribing, and adverse effects.MethodsWe carried out an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs). Presentation of the results aligned guidelines from the PRISMA statement. The data is presented as a narrative synthesis. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CENTRAL and SCOPUS databases from January 1990 to March 2017, reviewed the reference lists of all included SRs and searched for ongoing SRs in PROSPERO database. We encompassed SRs and meta-analyses which took into account RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and observational studies investigating the effect of using CVD risk scoring. Only studies performed in a primary care setting, with adult participants free of clinical CVD were eligible. Intervention was CVD risk assessment with use of the total CVD risk scoring compared with standard care with no use of TRA .ResultsWe identified 2157 records, we then recognised and analysed 10 relevant SRs. One SR reported statistically insignificant reduction of CVD death, when using TRA, the second SR presented meta-analysis which reported no effect on fatal and non-fatal CV events compared with conventional care (5.4% vs 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.08; I2?=?25%). Three SRs have shown that using TRA causes no adverse events. The impact of TRA on global CVD risk as well as individual risk factors is ambiguous, but a tendency towards slight reduction of blood pressure, total cholesterol and smoking levels, especially in high risk patient groups was observed. TRA had no influence on lifestyle behaviour.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence, of low overall quality, suggesting a possible lack of effectiveness of TRA in reducing CVD events and mortality, as well as a clinically insignificant influence on individual risk factor levels. Using TRA does not cause harm to patients.Trial registrationSystematic review protocol was registered with the International PROSPERO database - registration number CRD42016046898 .

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.DesignMethodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.Data sourcesCancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.ResultsWe included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95%?CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95%?CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95%?CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95%?CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)).ConclusionsWhen comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.

Dataset Information

Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets