F C J I Moenen1, P J Nelemans2, S E M Schols3, H C Schouten1, Y M C Henskens4, E A M Beckers1. 1. Department of Haematology, Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Haematology, Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Central Diagnostic Laboratory, Unit for Haemostasis and Transfusion, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The bleeding assessment tool (BAT) has been developed to standardize and interpret bleeding history for mild bleeding disorders. However, a critical appraisal addressing the quality and results of validation studies is lacking. AIM: We performed a systematic review of diagnostic studies assessing the performance of the BAT in patients referred for evaluation of bleeding symptoms. METHODS: The electronic database PubMed was searched from inception through July 27, 2017. Eligible publications were original studies that assessed and validated the diagnostic accuracy of bleeding questionnaires for identification of adults with mild bleeding disorders. For each study, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic studies-2 tool. To assess the influence of specific study characteristics on DOR, univariate meta-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. Five studies investigating the ISTH-BAT or other bleeding questionnaires had a moderate to low DOR. Four studies investigating Vicenza-based BATs had a high DOR, with high specificity (>90%) and sensitivity of 59%-85%. Study characteristics such as case-control design, retrospective data collection and differences in reference standard were associated with optimistic estimates of diagnostic performance. Three of four studies with a high DOR had these study characteristics. Studies with good methodological quality mainly had a low DOR. CONCLUSION: The main advantage of the BAT is that it offers a complete and structured interview. However, the BAT is of limited diagnostic value to the workup of patients referred for bleeding evaluation in clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: The bleeding assessment tool (BAT) has been developed to standardize and interpret bleeding history for mild bleeding disorders. However, a critical appraisal addressing the quality and results of validation studies is lacking. AIM: We performed a systematic review of diagnostic studies assessing the performance of the BAT in patients referred for evaluation of bleeding symptoms. METHODS: The electronic database PubMed was searched from inception through July 27, 2017. Eligible publications were original studies that assessed and validated the diagnostic accuracy of bleeding questionnaires for identification of adults with mild bleeding disorders. For each study, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic studies-2 tool. To assess the influence of specific study characteristics on DOR, univariate meta-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. Five studies investigating the ISTH-BAT or other bleeding questionnaires had a moderate to low DOR. Four studies investigating Vicenza-based BATs had a high DOR, with high specificity (>90%) and sensitivity of 59%-85%. Study characteristics such as case-control design, retrospective data collection and differences in reference standard were associated with optimistic estimates of diagnostic performance. Three of four studies with a high DOR had these study characteristics. Studies with good methodological quality mainly had a low DOR. CONCLUSION: The main advantage of the BAT is that it offers a complete and structured interview. However, the BAT is of limited diagnostic value to the workup of patients referred for bleeding evaluation in clinical practice.
Authors: Joline L Saes; Marieke J A Verhagen; Karina Meijer; Marjon H Cnossen; Roger E G Schutgens; Marjolein Peters; Laurens Nieuwenhuizen; Felix J M van der Meer; Ilmar C Kruis; Waander L van Heerde; Saskia E M Schols Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-10-27
Authors: Jordan Spradbrow; Sasha Letourneau; Julie Grabell; Yupu Liang; James Riddel; Wilma Hopman; Victor S Blanchette; Margaret L Rand; Barry S Coller; Andrew D Paterson; Paula D James Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2019-10-30
Authors: Lars L F G Valke; Danielle Meijer; Laurens Nieuwenhuizen; Britta A P Laros-van Gorkom; Nicole M A Blijlevens; Waander L van Heerde; Saskia E M Schols Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2022-03-15
Authors: Floor C J I Heubel-Moenen; Sanne L N Brouns; Linda Herfs; Lara S Boerenkamp; Natalie J Jooss; Rick J H Wetzels; Paul W M Verhezen; Patric Machiels; Karyn Megy; Kate Downes; Johan W M Heemskerk; Erik A M Beckers; Yvonne M C Henskens Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 8.615
Authors: Marieke C Punt; Maaike W Blaauwgeers; Merel A Timmer; Paco M J Welsing; Roger E G Schutgens; Karin P M van Galen Journal: TH Open Date: 2019-11-29
Authors: Francesco Rodeghiero; Ingrid Pabinger; Margaret Ragni; Rezan Abdul-Kadir; Erik Berntorp; Victor Blanchette; Imre Bodó; Alessandro Casini; Paolo Gresele; Riitta Lassila; Frank Leebeek; David Lillicrap; Diego Mezzano; Patrizia Noris; Alok Srivastava; Alberto Tosetto; Jerzy Windyga; Barbara Zieger; Mike Makris; Nigel Key Journal: Hemasphere Date: 2019-09-17