LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review

Photo from wikipedia

Objectives To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).… Click to show full abstract

Objectives To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Design Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021. Eligibility criteria All validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery). Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis. Results Seventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Conclusions Available data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020221094.

Keywords: assessment models; systematic review; venous thromboembolism; risk; risk assessment

Journal Title: BMJ Open
Year Published: 2022

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.