Logo image
Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review

Abdulla Pandor, Michael Tonkins, Steve Goodacre, Katie Sworn, Mark Clowes, Xavier L. Griffin, Mark Holland, Beverley J. Hunt, Kirstin de Wit and Daniel Horner
BMJ Open, Vol.11(7), e04567
29/07/2021

Abstract

Health and Medicine
Introduction Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital. Methods A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings. Results Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7–0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%. Conclusion Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.
pdf
Risk assessment models BMJOpen.pdf1.62 MBDownloadView
Published (Version of record)CC BY V4.0 Open Access
url
Link to Published VersionView
Published (Version of record)Publisher sites may require subscription to read contentCC BY V4.0 Open

Metrics

1 File views/ downloads
16 Record Views
99 Times Cited - Scopus

Details

Logo image

Usage Policy