4.7 Article

Predictive value of the 4Ts scoring system for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 120, Issue 20, Pages 4160-4167

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-07-443051

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [K23HL112903]
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario
  3. Baxter
  4. Bayer
  5. Novo Nordisk
  6. GlaxoSmithKline
  7. Informa Healthcare
  8. Boehringer Ingelheim
  9. Octapharma
  10. Pfizer
  11. Leo Pharma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 4Ts is a pretest clinical scoring system for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Although widely used in clinical practice, its predictive value for HIT in diverse settings and patient populations is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the predictive value of the 4Ts in patients with suspected HIT. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database, and ISI Web of Science for studies that included patients with suspected HIT, who were evaluated by both the 4Ts and a reference standard against which the 4Ts could be compared. Quality of eligible studies was assessed by QUADAS-2 criteria. Thirteen studies, collectively involving 3068 patients, fulfilled eligibility criteria. A total of 1712 (55.8%) patients were classified by 4Ts score as having a low probability of HIT. The negative predictive value of a low probability 4Ts score was 0.998 (95% CI, 0.970-1.000) and remained high irrespective of the party responsible for scoring, the prevalence of HIT, or the composition of the study population. The positive predictive value of an intermediate and high probability 4Ts score was 0.14 (0.09-0.22) and 0.64 (0.40-0.82), respectively. A low probability 4Ts score appears to be a robust means of excluding HIT. Patients with intermediate and high probability scores require further evaluation. (Blood. 2012; 120(20): 4160-4167)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available