QIN Xiaoli 1,2 , OU Shunlong 3,4 , GAO Xiurong 2 , LUO Jing 5 , WEI Hua 6 , JIANG Qian 3,4 , YI Qun 3,7
  • 1. Department of Pharmacy, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu 610031, P. R. China;
  • 2. College of Pharmacy, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu 610500, P. R. China;
  • 3. Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Center, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
  • 4. Department of Pharmacy, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
  • 5. School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu 610054, P. R. China;
  • 6. Department of Pharmacy, Chengdu Second People’s Hospital, Chengdu 610021, P. R. China;
  • 7. Party Committee Office, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
JIANG Qian, Email: jiangqian@scszlyy.org.cn; YI Qun, Email: yiqun@scszlyy.org.cn
Venous thromboembolism; Risk assessment tools; Systematic review
10.7507/1672-2531.202306080
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective  To systematically review venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment tools. Methods  The Embase, PubMed, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP databases and 22 relevant institutions and associations were searched to identify all VTE assessment tools from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and cross-checked it. A qualitative analysis was used to describe the country's essential characteristics, publishing organization, year, applicable disease type, applicable population, tool formation method, etc. Key elements and techniques were compared in terms of evaluation dimension, methods, and procedures to form the tool, risk stratification ability, and whether to verify. Results  A total of 42 VTE risk assessment tools have been included, of which the United States had the most significant number of 17, and China had only 4. They were released in 1996 to 2021, and the applicable disease types and populations differ. Nineteen tools were constructed based on case-control or retrospective cohort studies, 16 were conducted using prospective cohort studies, and 5 were based on cross-sectional and RCT studies; Additionally, there were 20 tools built based on logistic regression models; The evaluation dimensions of each tool were different, and the higher frequency of occurrences were VTE history, age, BMI value, and confirmed tumor, accounting for 64.29%, 54.76%, 54.76%, and 47.62%, respectively. Thirty-three tools were stratified for risk, and 30 tools were presented in the form of risk scores; Some tools lacked clinical validation data, and only 12 tools were analyzed for specificity, sensitivity, NPV, PPV, and AUC. Conclusion  The evaluation dimensions and evidence sources of existing VTE risk assessment tools are not completely consistent, the implementation methods and results presentation forms of the tools are not completely the same, and the scope of application is different; Some tool construction methods and processes are not clear enough, and there is a lack of validation research on external validity, which has certain limitations in promoting clinical practice in China.