학술논문

Estimating incidence of venous thromboembolism in COVID‐19: Methodological considerations
Document Type
article
Source
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Vol 6, Iss 6, Pp n/a-n/a (2022)
Subject
COVID‐19
incidence
meta‐analysis
SARS‐CoV‐2
venous thromboembolism
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs
RC633-647.5
Language
English
ISSN
2475-0379
Abstract
Abstract Background Coagulation abnormalities and coagulopathy are recognized as consequences of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Specifically, venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been reported as a frequent complication. By May 27, 2021, at least 93 original studies and 25 meta‐analyses investigating VTE incidence in patients with COVID‐19 had been published, showing large heterogeneity in reported VTE incidence ranging from 0% to 85%. This large variation complicates interpretation of individual study results as well as comparisons across studies, for example, to investigate changes in incidence over time, compare subgroups, and perform meta‐analyses. Objectives This study sets out to provide an overview of sources of heterogeneity in VTE incidence studies in patients with COVID‐19, illustrated using examples. Methods The original studies of three meta‐analyses were screened and a list of sources of heterogeneity that may explain observed heterogeneity across studies was composed. Results The sources of heterogeneity in VTE incidence were classified as clinical sources and methodologic sources. Clinical sources of heterogeneity include differences between studies regarding patient characteristics that affect baseline VTE risk and protocols used for VTE testing. Methodologic sources of heterogeneity include differences in VTE inclusion types, data quality, and the methods used for data analysis. Conclusions To appreciate reported estimates of VTE incidence in patients with COVID‐19 in relation to its etiology, prevention, and treatment, researchers should unambiguously report about possible clinical and methodological sources of heterogeneity in those estimates. This article provides suggestions for that.