Key result
Padua, Geneva, and Kucher models increase appropriate VTE prophylaxis but lack adequate external validation.
Why the study?
Multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) for VTE in hospitalized medical patients have been developed, and evidence related to RAMs for VTE and bleeding was needed to inform the 2018 ASH guidelines.
Do risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding improve outcomes or appropriate prophylaxis rates in hospitalized medical patients?
Population
2 systematic reviews comprising 19 unique studies reporting on 15 RAMs in medical inpatients
Comparison
15 risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding
Design
Overview of systematic reviews
Authors
Loading...
Supports use of Padua, Geneva, and Kucher models to increase appropriate prophylaxis; leaves open external validation and outcome impact.
Systematic Review
Do risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding improve outcomes or appropriate prophylaxis rates in hospitalized medical patients?
This overview of systematic reviews identified 15 VTE risk-assessment models for medical inpatients, highlighting that the Padua, Geneva, and Kucher models have demonstrated improved appropriate prophylaxis rates in impact studies.
Darzi et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding. Risk-assessment models (RAMs) vs. Standard care or alternative RAMs was evaluated on Predictive performance and impact on VTE prophylaxis rates. The Padua, Geneva, and Kucher risk-assessment models for venous thromboembolism increased appropriate prophylaxis rates in hospitalized medical patients, although most models lack adequate external validation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: