4.6 Review

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

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065892

关键词

OBSTETRICS; HAEMATOLOGY; Maternal medicine; Anticoagulation

资金

  1. UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme [131021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a systematic review to assess the accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) in predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk during pregnancy and the early postnatal period. The results suggest that the available data have weak designs and limited generalisability, making the estimates of prognostic accuracy uncertain.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据