scholarly journals Systematic review of the venous thromboembolism risk assessment models used in aesthetic plastic surgery

JPRAS Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia J White ◽  
Muholan Kanapathy ◽  
Darius Nikkhah ◽  
Mo Akhavani
2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Huang ◽  
Frederick A. Anderson ◽  
Frederick A. Spencer ◽  
Alexander Gallus ◽  
Robert J. Goldberg

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e045672
Author(s):  
Abdullah Pandor ◽  
Michael Tonkins ◽  
Steve Goodacre ◽  
Katie Sworn ◽  
Mark Clowes ◽  
...  

IntroductionHospital-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.MethodsA 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.ResultsAmong 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%.ConclusionAvailable 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.PROSPERO registration numberSteve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778


2017 ◽  
Vol 121 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Ye ◽  
Carolyn Stalvey ◽  
Matheen Khuddus ◽  
David Winchester ◽  
Hale Toklu ◽  
...  

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially fatal disorder. Prophylaxis is often suboptimal in medical inpatients, attributed to the difficulty in identifying at-risk patients. Simple and validated risk-assessment models (RAMs) are available to assist clinicians in identifying and stratifying patients who have a higher likelihood for developing VTE. Despite the well-documented association of immobility with increased risk of thrombosis, immobility is not consistently defined in clinical studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published RAMs, based on objective criteria, to determine how the term immobility is defined in RAMs. Results: We identified seventeen RAMs with six being externally validated. The concept of immobility is vaguely described in different RAMs, impacting the validity of these models in clinical practice. The widespread variability in defining mobility in RAMs precluded its accurate clinical application further limiting generalization of published RAMs. Conclusion: Externally validated RAMs with clearly defined qualitative or quantitative terms of immobility are needed to assess VTE risk in real-time at the point-of-care.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 633-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Mahajerin ◽  
Julie Jaffray ◽  
Brian Branchford ◽  
Amy Stillings ◽  
Emily Krava ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document