Cargando…

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

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-A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pandor, Abdullah, Daru, Jahnavi, Hunt, Beverley J, Rooney, Gill, Hamilton, Jean, Clowes, Mark, Goodacre, Steve, Nelson-Piercy, Catherine, Davis, Sarah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9562726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36223963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065892
_version_ 1784808238586265600
author Pandor, Abdullah
Daru, Jahnavi
Hunt, Beverley J
Rooney, Gill
Hamilton, Jean
Clowes, Mark
Goodacre, Steve
Nelson-Piercy, Catherine
Davis, Sarah
author_facet Pandor, Abdullah
Daru, Jahnavi
Hunt, Beverley J
Rooney, Gill
Hamilton, Jean
Clowes, Mark
Goodacre, Steve
Nelson-Piercy, Catherine
Davis, Sarah
author_sort Pandor, Abdullah
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9562726
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95627262022-10-15 Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review Pandor, Abdullah Daru, Jahnavi Hunt, Beverley J Rooney, Gill Hamilton, Jean Clowes, Mark Goodacre, Steve Nelson-Piercy, Catherine Davis, Sarah BMJ Open Obstetrics and Gynaecology 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9562726/ /pubmed/36223963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065892 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Pandor, Abdullah
Daru, Jahnavi
Hunt, Beverley J
Rooney, Gill
Hamilton, Jean
Clowes, Mark
Goodacre, Steve
Nelson-Piercy, Catherine
Davis, Sarah
Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review
title Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review
title_full Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review
title_fullStr Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review
title_short Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review
title_sort risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review
topic Obstetrics and Gynaecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9562726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36223963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065892
work_keys_str_mv AT pandorabdullah riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT darujahnavi riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT huntbeverleyj riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT rooneygill riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT hamiltonjean riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT clowesmark riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT goodacresteve riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT nelsonpiercycatherine riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview
AT davissarah riskassessmentmodelsforvenousthromboembolisminpregnancyandinthepuerperiumasystematicreview