Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 May 24;17(5):e0268833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268833

Risk stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in medical patients (RISE): Protocol for a prospective cohort study

Damien Choffat 1,*, Pauline Darbellay Farhoumand 2, Evrim Jaccard 1, Roxane de la Harpe 1, Vanessa Kraege 1, Malik Benmachiche 1, Christel Gerber 1, Salomé Leuzinger 3, Clara Podmore 3, Minh Khoa Truong 4, Céline Dumans-Louis 1, Christophe Marti 2, Jean-Luc Reny 2, Drahomir Aujesky 5, Damiana Rakovic 5, Andreas Limacher 6, Jean-Benoît Rossel 3,6, Christine Baumgartner 5,‡, Marie Méan 1,‡
Editor: Roza Chaireti7
PMCID: PMC9128957  PMID: 35609087

Abstract

Background

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the leading preventable causes of in-hospital mortality. However, its risk assessment in medically ill inpatients is complicated due to the patients’ heterogeneity and complexity of currently available risk assessment models (RAMs). The simplified Geneva score provides simplicity but has not yet been prospectively validated. Immobility is an important predictor for VTE in RAMs, but its definition is inconsistent and based on subjective assessment by nurses or physicians. In this study, we aim to prospectively validate the simplified Geneva score and to examine the predictive performance of a novel and objective definition of in-hospital immobilization using accelerometry.

Methods and analysis

RISE is a multicenter prospective cohort study. The goal is to recruit 1350 adult inpatients admitted for medical illness in three Swiss tertiary care hospitals. We collect data on demographics, comorbidities, VTE risk and thromboprophylaxis. Mobility from admission to discharge is objectively measured using a wrist-worn accelerometer. Participants are followed for 90 days for the occurrence of symptomatic VTE (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes are the occurrence of clinically relevant bleeding, and mortality. The evolution of autonomy in the activities of daily living, the length of stay, and the occurrence of readmission are also recorded. Time-dependent area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values are calculated for each RAM (i.e. the simplified and original Geneva score, Padua, and IMPROVE score) with and without the objective mobility measures to assess their accuracy in predicting hospital-acquired VTE at 90 days.

Ethics and expected impact

The ethics committee approved the protocol and the study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04439383. RISE has the potential to optimize VTE risk stratification, and thus to improve the quality of care of medically hospitalized patients.

Introduction

Hospital acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), is one of the leading preventable causes of in-hospital mortality [1]. About 75% of all hospital-acquired VTE occur in hospitalized medical patients [2]. So much so that hospitalization for an acute medical illness is per se a risk factor for VTE [3].

Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) conducted 15 to 20 years ago showed significant reductions in VTE with the use of heparin compared to placebo in selected medical inpatients [4–6]. However, pharmacological VTE prophylaxis increases the risk of bleeding [4]. Guidelines recommend providing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (TPX) to hospitalized medical patients only if they are at increased risk of VTE during their hospital stay [7,8].

Assessing thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients is currently done empirically or using risk assessment models (RAMs) incorporating an array of demographic and clinical patient characteristics. Available validated RAMs, such as the original Geneva score [9], the Padua [10] or the IMPROVE score [11,12], have various shortcomings including a suboptimal sensitivity to identify high VTE risk patients (ranging from 73% to 90% among any of the RAMs) [13]. Furthermore, they have a large number of items score, some of which are not available at admission (e.g. ICU stay) [12]. The simplified Geneva score has recently been developed as a simpler and more usable RAM [13]. Prospective validation is needed before it can be implemented in everyday clinical practice. To that end, the first aim of this study is to externally validate this novel RAM.

Being an important risk factor for hospital-acquired VTE, immobilization is included in existing RAMs [9,10,12,14]. However, due to the lack of a standardized definition, its usefulness is limited [13,15]. In everyday practice, the degree of immobilization is estimated subjectively, based either on the physician’s own perception or on nursing assessment [16–21], with a questionable accuracy [21]. Patients and hospital staff also interpret physicians’ orders of mobilization with a substantial variation; for example ambulation orders “out of bed to chair” can lead to a daily step count of 0 to 1800 (0–1.3 km) [21].

Recent evidence suggests that objective measures of mobility using a wrist-worn tri-axis accelerometer improves the accuracy of mobility assessment in hospitalized patients [22–26]. Whether objective mobility measures could predict hospital-acquired VTE, and whether incorporation of these measures into VTE RAMs could improve their predictive ability has yet to be examined. Therefore, we aim to establish the predictive performance of a novel and objective definition of in-hospital immobilization using accelerometry.

Overall, risk assessment and prevention of hospital-acquired VTE remains a major challenge for hospital physicians, and expert societies have called for further research on this topic [8]. To that end, this prospective cohort study aims to improve VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients.

Objectives and hypotheses

The primary objective is to prospectively validate the simplified Geneva score and to compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs (i.e., the original Geneva, Padua, and IMPROVE scores). Therefore, we hypothesize that the novel, easier-to-use simplified Geneva score will be able to accurately detect medical inpatients at risk of hospital-acquired VTE and that it will be at least as accurate as previously validated RAMs.

Our second objective is to develop a new, objective, definition of inpatient immobilization using accelerometry and to compare its performance in predicting hospital-acquired VTE with that of the subjective measurement. Accordingly, we hypothesize that objective, accelerometry-assessed mobility will be more accurate in predicting the risk of hospital-acquired VTE than subjective physician perception and that its incorporation into the simplified Geneva score will improve its prognostic performance.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

RISE (RIsk Stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboEmbolism in medical patients) is a multicenter prospective cohort study including consecutive consenting adult patients admitted to the general internal medicine wards of three Swiss university hospitals (i.e., the Lausanne, Bern, and Geneva). The recruitment started June 22, 2020 and we expect that the last participant will finish the study in Spring 2022.

Patient selection

Consecutive adult patients with acute illness admitted for more than 24 hours to a general internal medicine ward are eligible. Exclusion criteria are the need for therapeutic anticoagulation (e.g., due to atrial fibrillation), estimated life expectancy of less than 30 days, insufficient proficiency of the German or French language, or prior enrolment in the cohort.

Importantly, patients with mental illness or cognitive impairment are not excluded from the study. Indeed, these disorders are frequently encountered in older patients, whose risk of VTE and immobilization are particularly high [27,28].

Ethical aspects

This study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the ICH-GCP guidelines, and all applicable legal/regulatory requirements. The Ethics Committee of the Canton of Berne (Kantonale Ethikkommission für die Forschung, Kanton Bern) authorized the RISE study on (Reference number: 2020–00606).

Baseline data collection and VTE risk assessment

For all eligible and consenting participants, study personnel prospectively collect demographic data (sex, year of birth, body weight, height, setting prior to admission), information on comorbidities (including all items of the Charlson Comorbidity Index [29,30]), medications at admission with a potential antithrombotic effect (aspirin, other antiplatelet therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), potential contraindications to pharmacological VTE prophylaxis (known hypersensitivity to heparin and history of heparin induced thrombocytopenia), and laboratory variables (thrombocytopenia, spontaneous international normalized ratio > 2 (INR), kidney failure and anemia) known to affect pharmacological TPX provision (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline data collection.

Demographic characteristics
Sex, year of birth, date of admission, date of study inclusion, body weight (kg), height (cm), setting prior to admission
Items of the risk assessment models
Previous VTE, hypercoagulable state/thrombophilia, active cancer, history of cancer within last 5 years, myeloproliferative syndrome, cardiac failure, respiratory failure, acute infection, rheumatologic disorder, immobilization (bed rest with bathroom privileges) ≥72 hours, estimated immobilization >7d, stroke (and date of event), myocardial infarction (and date of event), recent (≤1 month) trauma or surgery (and date of event), ongoing hormonal treatment, lower extremity paralysis/paresis, stay in the intensive care unit / intermediate care unit, nephrotic syndrome, recent travel (>6 hours), chronic venous insufficiency, pregnancy, dehydration
Comorbidities [29]
History of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, connective tissue disease, peptic ulcer disease, liver disease, diabetes mellitus, hemiplegia, chronic kidney disease, localized solid tumor, metastatic solid tumor, leukemia, lymphoma, AIDS, gastroduodenal ulcer, history of bleeding, inflammatory bowel disease; number of comorbidities
Contraindications to pharmacological VTE prophylaxis
Known hypersensitivity to heparin, history of heparin induced thrombocytopenia, liver failure, active non-major or major bleeding (and date of event), hemorrhagic transformation of acute ischemic stroke (and date of event)
Laboratory findings
Platelet count, international normalized ratio, serum creatinine, hemoglobin
Medications at admission
aspirin, other antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Autonomy
Modified Barthel Index; Braden scale; location of eating, eliminating urine or stool, and washing
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: VTE, venous thromboembolism; d, days.

At baseline, all items of the simplified and original Geneva score, the IMPROVE score, and the Padua score are collected (Table 2), and the score for each RAM is calculated in order to categorize study participants into risk groups for VTE. All demographic, clinical, and laboratory data are collected from electronic health records (EHR) or at the patient’s bedside (from the patient and/or nurse in charge) by trained study personnel.

Table 2. VTE risk assessment models for risk stratification in hospitalized medical patients.

Points
Score Items Simplified Geneva Score [13] Original Geneva Score [9] Padua Score [10] IMPROVE Score [12,14]
    Previous VTE 3 2 3 3
    Hypercoagulable state a 2 2 3 2
    Cancer b [9,10,31] 2 2 3 2
    Myeloproliferative syndrome c 2
    Cardiac failure d 2 2 1
    Respiratory failure e 2
    Acute infection 2 2 1
    Acute rheumatologic disorder f 2
    Immobilization 2g 1g 1h
    Reduced mobility 3i
    Lower limb paralysis or paresis [31] 2
    Age >60 years 1 1 1
    Age >70 years 1
    Body mass index ≥30kg/m2 1 1 1
    Recent stroke (≤ 3 months) [9] 1 2 1
    Recent myocardial infarction (≤ 1 month) [9] 2
    Nephrotic syndrome 2
    Hormonal treatment j 1 1
    Travel within last 7 days (>6 hours) 1
    Chronic venous insufficiency 1
    Pregnancy 1
    Dehydration 1
    Recent trauma or surgery (<1 month) 2
    Stay in intensive or coronary care unit 1
Cut-offs [8–10,12,13]
    Low VTE risk 0–2 0–2 0–3 0–1
    High VTE risk ≥3 ≥3 ≥4 ≥2
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: VTE, venous thromboembolism.

a anti-thrombin deficiency, APC resistance, protein C or protein S deficiency, factor V Leiden, G20210A prothrombin-mutation, antiphospholipid syndrome.

b metastatic cancer, or cancer treated with radiotherapy/chemotherapy/immunotherapy, or cancer surgery within last 6 months (also relates to myeloma or myelodysplastic syndrome), excluding non-melanoma skin cancer.

c essential thrombocytopenia, polycythemia vera, primary myelofibrosis, chronic myeloic leukemia.

d acute or chronic heart failure of any cause with a preserved or reduced ejection fraction.

e acute or chronic need for supplemental oxygen.

f rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, or connective tissue disease.

g immobilization was defined as complete bedrest or inability to walk for >30min per day for ≥3 days [9].

h immobilization was considered if the patient was being confined to bed or chair with or without bathroom privileges for ≥7 days immediately prior to and during hospital admission [31].

i reduced mobility was defined as anticipated bed rest with bathroom privileges for ≥3 days [10].

j contraception, post-menopausal hormone therapy, antitumor therapy containing estrogen, ethinylestradion, estradiol.

Treatments during hospital stay affecting the risk of hospital-acquired VTE or bleeding are recorded from the EHR, including type and duration of the pharmacological (low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, fondaparinux, other) and mechanical TPX (lower extremity compression stockings/bandages, intermittent pneumatic compression devices). In case therapeutic anticoagulation is initiated, the start date and the indication are documented. Furthermore, information on red blood cell transfusions, central venous catheter, and surgical procedures during hospitalization are recorded [32,33].

Autonomy in the activities of daily living (ADL) prior to hospitalization is assessed at admission using the modified Barthel Index [34]. For patients with cognitive impairment or confusion, the level of ADL autonomy is assessed by interviewing their relatives or caregivers. The modified Barthel Index has been reported as being the most accurate scale to assess activities of daily living (ADL) and has thus been widely used as a measure of autonomy [34]. The patient’s ability to perform different ADLs is rated as follows: fully independent, with minimal or moderate help, attempts task but putting him/herself at risk, or unable to perform. The maximum point score is 100; a total modified Barthel Index point score of 0–20 suggests total, 21–60 severe, 61–90 moderate, and 91–99 slight dependence. A point score of 100 indicates that the patient is independent of assistance from others.

Mobility assessment

Objective measurement of mobility is done with a wrist-worn tri-axis accelerometer (GENEActiv Original, ActivInsights Ltd, UK, https://www.activinsights.com/actigraphy/geneactiv-original/), parametrized at 50 Hz. The accelerometer is provided to patients immediately after inclusion. Patients are asked to wear the device continuously (day and night, including while showering) until hospital discharge or transfer to another department (e.g., intensive care, surgery unit, etc.). Accelerometry data is extracted and analyzed using the GGIR package for R (version 1.11 or later) [35]. A valid day of mobility measurement is defined as at least 10 hours of wearing the accelerometer during daytime, and at least 24 hours of valid data is required for analysis [36,37]. In the analysis, we consider the following measurements: minutes per day in different types of activities, no activity or sleep; total minutes during a day spent active/inactive; mean acceleration in miliG/vector. Physical activity raw data is further processed using the Verisense Step Count Algorithm for GGIR (https://github.com/ShimmerEngineering/Verisense-Toolbox/tree/master/Verisense_step_algorithm) and the open source GENEAclassify R-package (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/GENEAclassify/GENEAclassify.pdf), in order to obtain the number of steps taken per day. We estimate the percentage of time of a patient’s mobility, using a cut-off of <4 steps and ≥4 steps taken per minute to define periods of immobilization and mobilization, respectively, as previously reported in a study of medical inpatients [24].

For the subjective mobility measurement, we consider the patient’s, the nurse’s and the hospital treating physician’s mobility estimates. Patients are asked about their ability to walk, i.e. whether they are able to walk independently, with assistance from one or two people, with or without mobility aids, or if they are unable to walk at all. Furthermore, they are asked about the location of eating (bed, edge of bed, table), urinating and defecating (bed, chair next to bed, bathroom), and washing (bed, chair in front of sink, shower).

Nurses’ assessment of mobility is performed through items of the Braden scale [38]. The Braden scale has been developed and validated to identify hospitalized patients at risk of pressure sores. This scoring system includes six items with a total score ranging from 0 to 23. Patients with a score of nine or less are categorized as having a very high risk. Two items of this score are specifically dedicated to physical activity: “degree of physical activity” (patient is bedfast, chairfast, walks occasionally, walks often) and “ability to change and control position” (patient is completely immobile, very limited, slightly limited, or has no limitation in mobility). Therefore, nurses indirectly assess the mobility of patient.

On the second day of hospitalization, the physician is asked whether a corresponding patient fulfills the different immobilization criteria as defined in each RAM (Table 2). The physician is also asked to subjectively estimate the patient’s ability to ambulate in standardized terms (i.e., no ambulation, out of bed to chair, out of bed to ambulate once daily, twice or 3 times daily, or ambulate ad libitum) [21]. Hospital treating physicians are contacted on the second day of hospitalization rather than on admission because the decision to prescribe TPX is most likely already made and thus unlikely to be influenced by questions on the patient’s mobility status. Finally, information on physical therapy orders for mobilization are collected from EHR. The prescriptions of specific ambulation regimens or physical therapy are left at the discretion of the hospital treating physician.

Primary and secondary outcomes

The primary outcome is symptomatic objectively confirmed fatal and non-fatal VTE, defined as distal or proximal DVT or PE up to 90 days after hospital admission. As described in previous studies, the objective diagnostic of PE is based on available radiology (CT pulmonary angiography, pulmonary angiography, or ventilation-perfusion lung scan) or autopsy reports [39–42] (S4 File). Likewise, the objective diagnostic of DVT is based on compression ultrasonography or contrast venography [39,43]. As only symptomatic VTE events are recorded, patient need to present symptoms such as dyspnea, couch, acute chest pain or syncope for PE, and unilateral pain or swelling or erythema for DVT [44]. VTE events diagnosed during the first 48 hours of hospitalization are not considered as a primary outcome for this study in order to rule out pre-existing VTE that occurred prior to hospital admission [45]. In line with previous studies on VTE prophylaxis and given similarities in some risk factors and outcomes [31,46], symptomatic upper extremity DVT is also considered as a study outcome, although its incidence is expected to be low [46].

Secondary medical outcomes are the occurrence of major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and all-cause mortality during the follow-up period. As described in two previous Swiss VTE studies, SAFE-SSPE [40] and SWITCO65+ [43,47], major bleeding is defined as fatal bleeding, symptomatic bleeding at critical sites, bleeding with a reduction of hemoglobin of at least 20 g/L or bleeding leading to transfusion of 2 or more units of packed red blood cells [48]. Likewise, clinically relevant non-major bleeding is defined as overt bleeding that does not meet criteria for major bleeding but is associated with a medical intervention, unscheduled physician contact (visit or telephone call), or pain, or impairment of activities of daily life [49]. All-cause mortality is categorized as PE-related, bleeding-related, due to another cause or due to an undetermined cause according to already published criteria [40,50–53]. In addition, the evolution of the autonomy in the ADL during the follow-up period, using the modified Barthel Index, the length of hospital stay and rehospitalization for an acute medical illness up to 90 days are also considered as secondary outcomes.

All medical outcome events (hospital-acquired VTE, major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and death) are reviewed and adjudicated by a committee of three independent clinical experts. The final adjudication is based on the committee’s full consensus.

Study procedures

Study investigators screen consecutive patients newly admitted to general internal medicine of participating clinics for eligibility on weekdays (Figs 1 and 2). Eligible patients are informed about the study aims/procedures and asked to provide written informed consent. For patients who are unable to give informed consent due to mental illness or cognitive impairment, permission to participate in the study is obtained from a legally authorized representative. Participating patients are equipped with an accelerometer for collection of mobility data throughout the hospital stay, and trained study personnel collect patient baseline data on the day of enrolment (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Timeline of patient enrolment and schedule of data collection.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Adapted from the SPIRIT statement [54]. Abbreviations: d, day; RAM, risk assessment model; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

Fig 2. Study organization and follow-up.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

A follow-up visit is conducted prior to discharge to collect information on discharge location, information on treatments since admission with a focus on pharmacological and mechanical TPX, patient autonomy, and clinical outcomes (Fig 1). Study investigators collect the accelerometer and upload accelerometry data to the database using the relevant software.

A follow-up phone call is performed at day 90 ± 5 after study inclusion by trained study personnel. In case of unavailability of the patient, their designated contact person or general practitioner is called instead. Information on outcomes is assessed. As initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation during follow-up affects the outcomes, we also collect information about the potential introduction of therapeutic anticoagulation since discharge (Fig 1). In case of the occurrence of a medical outcome event, study personnel collect all available documentation (e.g. medical reports, laboratory and imaging data) related to the event for the adjudication process.

Sample size calculation

We performed the sample size calculation for the primary objective, i.e. the validation of the simplified Geneva score for the prediction of hospital-acquired VTE. Based on a 2010 Swiss cohort study [13], we assume that that 67% of patients are categorized as high risk and 33% as low risk based on the simplified Geneva score, and a 90-day incidence of hospital-acquired VTE with adequate thromboprophylaxis of 2.8% and 0.6%, in high risk and low risk patients, respectively, according to the simplified Geneva score [13]. Therefore, we will need 1308 patients to detect an absolute risk difference of 2.2% between high and low risk patients, with a power of 80% at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. The numbers stated above correspond to a relative risk of 4.7, a sensitivity of 90%, and a specificity of 34% [13]. This sample size provides sufficient precision for the validation of the simplified Geneva score. Assuming an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75, the normal-approximation 95% confidence interval (CI) ranges from 0.64 to 0.86. For sensitivity and specificity, the 95% Wilson CIs range from 72% to 96% and from 31% to 36%, respectively. We will recruit a total sample of 1350 patients to account for potential dropouts, which we expect to be few given the low follow-up burden [10].

For the second objective, namely the assessment of objective mobility measurement to predict the risk of VTE, the same measures of association and prognostic accuracy as described above are estimated. The sample size of 1350 patients provides comparable precision as stated above.

Planned statistical analyses

Once the 1350 patients will have completed the study, the following statistical analyses will be conducted. First, time to event analyses with competing risk methods will be used to assess the prognostic performance of the simplified Geneva score and the other RAMs (Table 2) and their association with hospital-acquired VTE, with non-VTE death representing the competing risk. We will use a subdistribution hazard model of Fine and Gray [55] to assess the association of the simplified Geneva score and the other RAMs with VTE, calculating subhazard ratios with 95% CIs. These analyses will be adjusted for the use of TPX and study site. Cumulative incidences of hospital-acquired VTE in low- and high-risk score patients will be assessed and graphically presented to assess calibration and compare different RAMs. The time-dependent AUC as well as sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values will be calculated for each RAM to assess their accuracy to predict hospital-acquired VTE at 90 days using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-curve analysis, taking into account censored data and competing events.

Additionally, as some patients are treated with TPX, we will perform separate sensitivity analyses in patients with and without TPX. It is possible that during follow-up, a small number of patients will be started on therapeutic dose anticoagulation for reasons other than VTE (e.g., new onset atrial fibrillation); data of these patients will be censored in the main analysis.

Secondary time-to-event outcomes (major and clinically relevant non-major bleedings) will also be evaluated using competing risk regression. For all-cause mortality, we will use an ordinary Cox regression, for length of stay an accelerated failure time model. Binary outcomes (in-hospital VTE and readmission) will be evaluated using logistic regression. The Barthel-index will be assessed using linear regression. All models will be adjusted for the use of TPX and study site.

We will examine the association between subjective (physician’s perception) and objective (accelerometry-measured) mobility levels, as a continuous measure as well as divided into quartiles, and 90-day cumulative incidences of HA-VTE using competing risk regression (accounting for non-VTE related death as a competing event), unadjusted and adjusted for TPX and study site [37]. To define an optimal cutoff for objective immobility, we will assess sensitivity and specificity at different mobility levels using time-dependent ROC-curve analysis accounting for censored data and competing events. To compare the predictive performance of the simplified Geneva score using the standard subjectively-assessed definition of immobilization (i.e. physician perception, Table 2) versus using objective accelerometry-assessed mobility measures, we will use likelihood ratio tests and/or the Akaike information criterion (AIC) as well as the c-statistics in competing risk models; mobility measures will be used as single covariates, as well as incorporated in the simplified Geneva score. We will assess the net reclassification index to assess improvement in risk prediction if using the accelerometry-based mobility measure instead of the subjective immobility assessment for the simplified Geneva score.

Expected impact and strengths

RISE will provide the first prospective head-to-head comparison of validated VTE RAMs. Previous studies suggest that pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is inappropriately used in medical patients: an international cross-sectional study reported that only about 40% of medical patients at high risk of VTE received appropriate prophylaxis, while on the other hand, it was inappropriately prescribed in half of all low risk patients [9,56,57]. Multiple reasons have been postulated for inadequate use of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients, including the challenge to assess thromboembolic risk [58]. Our results will provide a clearer guidance for physicians about optimal VTE risk assessment and thus have the potential to facilitate and improve VTE prevention and reduce hospital-acquired VTE and associated deaths in medical inpatients. The simplified identification of patients who may really benefit from TPX may thus not only result in improved quality of care, but also in cost-savings.

A prospective cohort design is the optimal study design and provides the highest quality data to meet the aim of this study. This design will also correct the inherent limitations of the already published retrospective head-to-head VTE RAM comparison. A longitudinal study design is necessary to investigate prognostic measures, and prospective data collection allows complete and standardized measurements of exposures prior to the occurrence of any outcomes; also, objective mobility measurement is only possible in a prospective manner. Moreover, given the broad eligibility criteria of RISE, the results of this study will be generalizable to the population of hospitalized medical patients at risk of hospital-acquired VTE, i.e. those without intake of therapeutic anticoagulation.

As reported in previous studies, the subjective evaluation of patient’s mobility is complex and unreliable [21,59,60]. In recent years, accelerometry-assessed mobility has become recognized as a valid and precise method to assess the mobility of inpatients [22–25]. A randomized Danish trial studying the effect of physical therapy on patient-reported outcomes after acute PE described several limitations using the incremental shuttle walk test as an objective mobility measure [59,61]. To this day, objective measures of mobility using accelerometry have only been assessed in studies with limited sample sizes [60,62]. RISE will be, to our knowledge, the first and the largest cohort studying VTE risk using accelerometry data.

Finally, the RISE cohort including 1350 general medical inpatients will be a valuable source for several secondary analyses, such as evaluating the association between TPX and bleeding, prospectively validating the IMPROVE bleeding risk score, and correlating nurse estimates of patients’ mobility, using the Braden score, with objective measurements.

Thus, RISE has the potential to generate important knowledge about VTE prevention and risk stratification and to improve the quality of care of medical hospitalized patients.

Supporting information

S1 File. Study protocol and synopsis submitted and accepted by the Ethics committee.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (2.3MB, pdf)
S2 File. Approval letter of the Ethics committee of Bern (in German).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (372.1KB, pdf)
S3 File. Patient information sheet and informed consent (in German).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (289.6KB, pdf)
S4 File. Case-report form (baseline, discharge, follow-up at 90 days).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (160.9KB, pdf)
S5 File. Adjudication criteria.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (866.9KB, pdf)
S6 File. Completed SPIRIT checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (303.3KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank all patients that have already agreed to participate in this study. We would also like to thank the study personnel that have recruited all the participants so far and the medical experts that have adjudicated all the already reported medical outcomes.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.

Funding Statement

The RISE cohort is funded by several non-profit foundations (SGAIM Foundation, Novartis Biomedical Research Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Chuard Schmidt Foundation, Gottfried und Julia Bangerter Foundation). The funding sources had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

References

  • 1.Maynard G. Preventing hospital-associated venous thromboembolism: a guide for effective quality improvement. 2nd ed Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, August 2016. AHRQ Publication No 16-0001-EF; accessed at: https://wwwahrqgov/sites/default/files/publications/files/vteguidepdf July 15, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Goldhaber SZ, Dunn K, MacDougall RC. New onset of venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients at Brigham and Women’s Hospital is caused more often by prophylaxis failure than by withholding treatment. Chest. 2000;118(6):1680–4. Epub 2000/12/15. doi: 10.1378/chest.118.6.1680 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN, Petterson TM, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3rd. Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based case-control study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):809–15. Epub 2000/03/29. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.6.809 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alikhan R, Bedenis R, Cohen AT. Heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients (excluding stroke and myocardial infarction). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(5):CD003747. Epub 2014/05/09. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003747.pub4 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6491079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kakkar AK, Cimminiello C, Goldhaber SZ, Parakh R, Wang C, Bergmann JF. Low-molecular-weight heparin and mortality in acutely ill medical patients. The New England journal of medicine. 2011;365(26):2463–72. Epub 2011/12/30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111288 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Samama MM, Cohen AT, Darmon JY, Desjardins L, Eldor A, Janbon C, et al. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study Group. The New England journal of medicine. 1999;341(11):793–800. Epub 1999/09/09. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199909093411103 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, Cushman M, Dentali F, Akl EA, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e195S–e226S. Epub 2012/02/15. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2296 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3278052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schunemann HJ, Cushman M, Burnett AE, Kahn SR, Beyer-Westendorf J, Spencer FA, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Adv. 2018;2(22):3198–225. Epub 2018/11/30. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018022954 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6258910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nendaz M, Spirk D, Kucher N, Aujesky D, Hayoz D, Beer JH, et al. Multicentre validation of the Geneva Risk Score for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE). Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(3):531–8. Epub 2013/11/15. doi: 10.1160/TH13-05-0427 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V, Ferrari A, Brandolin B, Perlati M, et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(11):2450–7. Epub 2010/08/27. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04044.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Spyropoulos AC, Anderson FA Jr., FitzGerald G, Decousus H, Pini M, Chong BH, et al. Predictive and associative models to identify hospitalized medical patients at risk for VTE. Chest. 2011;140(3):706–14. Epub 2011/03/26. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-1944 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Spyropoulos AC, Anderson FA Jr., FitzGerald G, Decousus H, Pini M, Chong BH, et al. Predictive and associative models to identify hospitalized medical patients at risk for VTE. Chest. 2011;140(3):706–14. Epub 2011/03/26. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-1944 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Blondon M, Spirk D, Kucher N, Aujesky D, Hayoz D, Beer JH, et al. Comparative Performance of Clinical Risk Assessment Models for Hospital-Acquired Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Patients. Thromb Haemost. 2018;118(1):82–9. Epub 2018/01/06. doi: 10.1160/TH17-06-0403 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rosenberg D, Eichorn A, Alarcon M, McCullagh L, McGinn T, Spyropoulos AC. External validation of the risk assessment model of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) for medical patients in a tertiary health system. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2014;3(6):e001152. Epub 2014/11/19. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.114.001152 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4338701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hull RD. Relevance of immobility and importance of risk assessment management for medically ill patients. Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis: official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 2013;19(3):268–76. doi: 10.1177/1076029612452781 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brown CJ, Friedkin RJ, Inouye SK. Prevalence and outcomes of low mobility in hospitalized older patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2004;52(8):1263–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52354.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Callen BL, Mahoney JE, Grieves CB, Wells TJ, Enloe M. Frequency of hallway ambulation by hospitalized older adults on medical units of an academic hospital. Geriatric nursing. 2004;25(4):212–7. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2004.06.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lazarus BA, Murphy JB, Coletta EM, McQuade WH, Culpepper L. The provision of physical activity to hospitalized elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(12):2452–6. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hoyer EH, Young DL, Friedman LA, Brotman DJ, Klein LM, Friedman M, et al. Routine Inpatient Mobility Assessment and Hospital Discharge Planning. JAMA internal medicine. 2019;179(1):118–20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5145 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6583395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sinvani L, Kozikowski A, Patel V, Mulvany C, Smilios C, Qiu G, et al. Measuring Functional Status in Hospitalized Older Adults Through Electronic Health Record Documentation. Southern medical journal. 2018;111(4):220–5. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000788 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Daskivich TJ, Houman J, Lopez M, Luu M, Fleshner P, Zaghiyan K, et al. Association of Wearable Activity Monitors With Assessment of Daily Ambulation and Length of Stay Among Patients Undergoing Major Surgery. JAMA network open. 2019;2(2):e187673. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7673 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6484591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Brown CJ, Roth DL, Allman RM. Validation of use of wireless monitors to measure levels of mobility during hospitalization. Journal of rehabilitation research and development. 2008;45(4):551–8. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2007.06.0086 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hartley P, Keevil VL, Westgate K, White T, Brage S, Romero-Ortuno R, et al. Using Accelerometers to Measure Physical Activity in Older Patients Admitted to Hospital. Current gerontology and geriatrics research. 2018;2018:3280240. doi: 10.1155/2018/3280240 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6211152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lim SER, Dodds R, Bacon D, Sayer AA, Roberts HC. Physical activity among hospitalised older people: insights from upper and lower limb accelerometry. Aging clinical and experimental research. 2018;30(11):1363–9. doi: 10.1007/s40520-018-0930-0 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6208771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rowlands AV, Olds TS, Hillsdon M, Pulsford R, Hurst TL, Eston RG, et al. Assessing sedentary behavior with the GENEActiv: introducing the sedentary sphere. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2014;46(6):1235–47. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000224 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lim SER, Ibrahim K, Sayer AA, Roberts HC. Assessment of Physical Activity of Hospitalised Older Adults: A Systematic Review. The journal of nutrition, health & aging. 2018;22(3):377–86. doi: 10.1007/s12603-017-0931-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Alikhan R, Cohen AT, Combe S, Samama MM, Desjardins L, Eldor A, et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with acute medical illness: analysis of the MEDENOX Study. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(9):963–8. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.9.963 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Laporte S, Mismetti P, Decousus H, Uresandi F, Otero R, Lobo JL, et al. Clinical predictors for fatal pulmonary embolism in 15,520 patients with venous thromboembolism: findings from the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbolica venosa (RIETE) Registry. Circulation. 2008;117(13):1711–6. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.726232 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Journal of chronic diseases. 1987;40(5):373–83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. American journal of epidemiology. 2011;173(6):676–82. Epub 2011/02/19. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq433 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Spyropoulos AC, Ageno W, Albers GW, Elliott CG, Halperin JL, Hiatt WR, et al. Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis after Hospitalization for Medical Illness. The New England journal of medicine. 2018;379(12):1118–27. Epub 2018/08/28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805090 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Decousus H, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, Chong BH, Froehlich JB, Kakkar AK, et al. Factors at admission associated with bleeding risk in medical patients: findings from the IMPROVE investigators. Chest. 2011;139(1):69–79. Epub 2010/05/11. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-3081 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hostler DC, Marx ES, Moores LK, Petteys SK, Hostler JM, Mitchell JD, et al. Validation of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism Bleeding Risk Score. Chest. 2016;149(2):372–9. Epub 2016/02/13. doi: 10.1378/chest.14-2842 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1989;42(8):703–9. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rowlands AV, Yates T, Davies M, Khunti K, Edwardson CL. Raw accelerometer data analysis with GGIR R-package: does accelerometer brand matter? Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2016;48(10):1935–41. Epub 2016/05/18. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000978 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dillon CB, Fitzgerald AP, Kearney PM, Perry IJ, Rennie KL, Kozarski R, et al. Number of Days Required to Estimate Habitual Activity Using Wrist-Worn GENEActiv Accelerometer: A Cross-Sectional Study. PloS one. 2016;11(5):e0109913. Epub 2016/05/07. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109913 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4858250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tasheva P, Vollenweider P, Kraege V, Roulet G, Lamy O, Marques-Vidal P, et al. Association Between Physical Activity Levels in the Hospital Setting and Hospital-Acquired Functional Decline in Elderly Patients. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(1):e1920185–e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bergstrom N, Braden BJ, Laguzza A, Holman V. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Nurs Res. 1987;36(4):205–10. Epub 1987/07/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Buller HR, Cohen AT, Davidson B, Decousus H, Gallus AS, Gent M, et al. Idraparinux versus standard therapy for venous thromboembolic disease. The New England journal of medicine. 2007;357(11):1094–104. Epub 2007/09/15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa064247 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Baumgartner C, Klok FA, Carrier M, Limacher A, Moor J, Righini M, et al. Clinical Surveillance vs. Anticoagulation For low-risk patiEnts with isolated SubSegmental Pulmonary Embolism: protocol for a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial (SAFE-SSPE). BMJ Open. 2020;10(11):e040151. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Investigators TC. Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;337(10):657–62. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199709043371001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Newton DH, Monreal Bosch M, Amendola M, Wolfe L, Perez Ductor C, Lecumberri R, et al. Analysis of noncatheter-associated upper extremity deep venous thrombosis from the RIETE registry. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017;5(1):18–24.e1. Epub 2016/12/19. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.08.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mean M, Righini M, Jaeger K, Beer HJ, Frauchiger B, Osterwalder J, et al. The Swiss cohort of elderly patients with venous thromboembolism (SWITCO65+): rationale and methodology. Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis. 2013;36(4):475–83. doi: 10.1007/s11239-013-0875-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ploton G, Pistorius M-A, Raimbeau A, Denis Le Seve J, Bergère G, Ngohou C, et al. A STROBE cohort study of 755 deep and superficial upper-extremity vein thrombosis. Medicine. 2020;99(6):e18996. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018996 00005792-202002070-00027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Roy PM, Rachas A, Meyer G, Le Gal G, Durieux P, El Kouri D, et al. Multifaceted Intervention to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Medical Illness: A Multicenter Cluster-Randomized Trial. PloS one. 2016;11(5):e0154832. Epub 2016/05/27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154832 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4881951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cote LP, Greenberg S, Caprini JA, Tafur A, Choi C, Munoz FJ, et al. Comparisons Between Upper and Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Review of the RIETE Registry. Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis: official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 2017;23(7):748–54. Epub 2016/08/31. doi: 10.1177/1076029616663847 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Frei AN, Stalder O, Limacher A, Méan M, Baumgartner C, Rodondi N, et al. Comparison of Bleeding Risk Scores in Elderly Patients Receiving Extended Anticoagulation with Vitamin K Antagonists for Venous Thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost. (EFirst). Epub 30.04.2021. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1726345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Schulman S, Kearon C, Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the S, Standardization Committee of the International Society on T, Haemostasis. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(4):692–4. Epub 2005/04/22. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Raskob GE, Spyropoulos AC, Zrubek J, Ageno W, Albers G, Elliott CG, et al. The MARINER trial of rivaroxaban after hospital discharge for medical patients at high risk of VTE. Design, rationale, and clinical implications. Thromb Haemost. 2016;115(6):1240–8. doi: 10.1160/TH15-09-0756 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tritschler T, Kraaijpoel N, Girard P, Büller HR, Langlois N, Righini M, et al. Definition of pulmonary embolism-related death and classification of the cause of death in venous thromboembolism studies: Communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(6):1495–500. Epub 2020/06/05. doi: 10.1111/jth.14769 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tritschler T, Kraaijpoel N, Langlois N, Girard P, Schulman S, Buller HR, et al. Development of a standardized definition of pulmonary embolism-related death: a cross-sectional survey of international thrombosis experts. J Thromb Haemost. 2020. doi: 10.1111/jth.14775 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, Es G-Av, et al. Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2344–51. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.World Health Organization. Manual of the international statistical classification of diseases, injury, and causes of death. Geneva. 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2013;158(3):200–7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Fine JP, Gray RJ. A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1999;94(446):496–509. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, Goldhaber SZ, Kakkar AK, Deslandes B, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet (London, England). 2008;371(9610):387–94. Epub 2008/02/05. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60202-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Spirk D, Nendaz M, Aujesky D, Hayoz D, Beer JH, Husmann M, et al. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients. Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE). Thromb Haemost. 2015;113(5):1127–34. Epub 2015/01/23. doi: 10.1160/TH14-06-0525 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Theriault T, Touchette M, Goupil V, Echenberg D, Lanthier L. Thromboprophylaxis adherence to the ninth edition of American college of chest physicians antithrombotic guidelines in a tertiary care centre: a cross-sectional study. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. 2016;22(6):952–7. doi: 10.1111/jep.12569 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rolving N, Brocki BC, Bloch-Nielsen JR, Larsen TB, Jensen FL, Mikkelsen HR, et al. Effect of a Physiotherapist-Guided Home-Based Exercise Intervention on Physical Capacity and Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(2):e200064–e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pavon JM, Sloane RJ, Pieper CF, Colón-Emeric CS, Gallagher D, Cohen HJ, et al. Physical Activity in the Hospital: Documentation and Influence on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity. 2020;28(2):306–10. doi: 10.1123/japa.2018-0462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Singh SJ, Morgan MD, Scott S, Walters D, Hardman AE. Development of a shuttle walking test of disability in patients with chronic airways obstruction. Thorax. 1992;47(12):1019–24. Epub 1992/12/01. doi: 10.1136/thx.47.12.1019 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1021093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hamilton AC, Lee N, Stilphen M, Hu B, Schramm S, Frost F, et al. Increasing Mobility via In-hospital Ambulation Protocol Delivered by Mobility Technicians: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(5):272–7. Epub 2019/02/23. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3153 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Roza Chaireti

14 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-33782RIsk Stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboEmbolism in medical patients (RISE): protocol for a prospective cohort studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Choffat,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within Apr 25 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Roza Chaireti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments/ Funding Section of your manuscript: 

The RISE cohort is funded by several non-profit foundations (SGAIM Foundation, Novartis Biomedical Research Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Chuard Schmidt Foundation, Gottfried und Julia Bangerter Foundation). The funding sources had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The RISE cohort is funded by several non-profit foundations (SGAIM Foundation, Novartis Biomedical Research Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Chuard Schmidt Foundation, Gottfried und Julia Bangerter Foundation). The funding sources had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments: The authors presented a protocol for a prospective cohort study on risk stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in medical patients. Venous stasis as a predisposing factor for VTE in medical patients has been underrecognized, and this RCT will try to shed light on this aspect using objectively measured immobilization.

Specific comments:

1. Abstract, methods: you state “are calculated for each RAM”, but you have not listed or mentioned them. Essentially the scope of this study is to provide an objective assessment and grading of patient immobility, and assess its relative contribution in VTE risk, and eventually incorporate it in existing RAMs.

2. Page 3, last paragraph: Usually physician mobility orders are used and determine patient mobility; please comment.

3. Page 4, first paragraph: you mention the second aim of your study without mentioning its first aim.

Reviewer #2: In this study authors sent the protocol for a prospective cohort study

The aim of the study was prospectively validate the simplified Geneva score and to examine the predictive performance of a novel and objective definition of in-hospital immobilization using accelerometry.

- Primary objective is to prospectively validate the simplified Geneva score and to compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs (i.e., the original Geneva, Padua, and IMPROVE scores).

- Second objective is to develop a new, objective, definition of inpatient immobilization using accelerometry and to compare its performance in predicting hospital acquired VTE with that of the subjective measurement.

The work is well written, and the study design is quite robust, however, I would like to make a couple of comments/suggestions:

In the estimation of the sample size, “a 90-day incidence of hospital-acquired VTE of respectively 2.8% and 0.6%, in high risk and low risk patients respectively, has been taken into account”. In this sense, the percentages shown refer to percentages of VTE diagnosed with or without thromboprophylaxis? Has the number of patients who will receive thromboprophylaxis been taken into consideration? It is true that the authors comment that a sensitivity analysis adjusted for the use of thromboprophylaxis will be performed, but if this situation has not been previously taken into account, it could influence the statistical power.

Page 10: the authors state that: the objective diagnosis of PE is based on available radiographic or autopsy reports (39-42). I don't know if I have come to understand this sentence, but the diagnosis of PE should be based on a CT-scan /angioCT

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 May 24;17(5):e0268833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268833.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

9 Apr 2022

Roza Chaireti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Lausanne, April 5th, 2022

Re: Revision of the manuscript entitled “RIsk Stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboEmbolism in medical patients (RISE): protocol for a prospective cohort study.”

Dear editors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript entitled “RIsk Stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboEmbolism in medical patients (RISE): protocol for a prospective cohort study.”

We have provided a point-by-point response to each comment below.

Each author has approved the revised version, and we hope that these changes meet with your approval.

Please contact Dr. Choffat at damien.choffat@chuv.ch with any remaining questions or for additional clarification.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Dr Damien Choffat

 

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We ensured that our manuscript met the PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments/ Funding Section of your manuscript: The RISE cohort is funded by several non-profit foundations (SGAIM Foundation, Novartis Biomedical Research Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Chuard Schmidt Foundation, Gottfried und Julia Bangerter Foundation). The funding sources had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: The RISE cohort is funded by several non-profit foundations (SGAIM Foundation, Novartis Biomedical Research Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Chuard Schmidt Foundation, Gottfried und Julia Bangerter Foundation). The funding sources had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We removed any funding information from the manuscript. Our Funding Statement section of the online submission is correct.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

We confirm that our ethics statement is stated in the methods section.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have reviewed the whole bibliography and can confirm that no cited article has been retracted. Furthermore, our bibliography list is complete and correct.

5. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

a. Reviewer #1: Yes

b. Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you very much for your remark.

6. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

a. Reviewer #1: Yes

b. Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you.

7. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

a. Reviewer #1: Yes

b. Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you very much.

8. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

a. Reviewer #1: No

b. Reviewer #2: No

This manuscript describes a protocol for a prospective cohort study, which is still ongoing. There are no datasets analyzed for this manuscript. Therefore, we cannot make the data fully available.

9. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

a. Reviewer #1: Yes

b. Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you very much.

10. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

a. Reviewer #1: No

b. Reviewer #2: No

 

Reviewer #1:

1. The authors presented a protocol for a prospective cohort study on risk stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in medical patients. Venous stasis as a predisposing factor for VTE in medical patients has been under recognized, and this RCT will try to shed light on this aspect using objectively measured immobilization.

Thank you very much for your comment.

2. Abstract, methods: you state “are calculated for each RAM”, but you have not listed or mentioned them. Essentially the scope of this study is to provide an objective assessment and grading of patient immobility, and assess its relative contribution in VTE risk, and eventually incorporate it in existing RAMs.

Thank you for this remark. Indeed, we initially didn’t specify the name of the RAMs. We have now added the name of all the RAMs we will compare against the simplified Geneva score.

Manuscript modifications (abstract, page 2):

• Time-dependent area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values are calculated for each RAM (i.e. the original Geneva score, Padua, IMPROVE score and simplified Geneva score) with and without the objective mobility measures to assess their accuracy in predicting hospital-acquired VTE at 90 days.

3. Page 3, last paragraph: Usually physician mobility orders are used and determine patient mobility; please comment.

Thank you for this interesting remark. Indeed, many hospitalized patients aren’t active during hospitalization even if they can move freely as shown by this recent study (reference: Tasheva P, et al. Accelerometry assessed physical activity of older adults hospitalized with acute medical illness - an observational study. BMC Geriatr. 2020 Oct 2;20(1):382). Physicians’ mobility orders are not systematically followed by hospitalized patients (please see our manuscript reference #21)

Therefore, we decided not to use physician mobility orders, which represent an ideal goal for patients that is then applied or not by nursing staff and patients themselves, but rather how physicians estimate their patients’ ability to move (i,e, their subjective estimation). Furthermore, we were interested in the physicians’ subjective mobility estimation since it is a key factor in the decision of implementing or not thromboprophylaxis. We now clarified this in the introduction section on page 3.

Manuscript modifications (introduction, page 3):

• Patients and hospital staff also interpret physicians’ orders of mobilization with a substantial variation; for example, ambulation orders “out of bed to chair” can lead to a daily step count of 0 to 1800 (0-1.3 km) [21].

 

4. Page 4, first paragraph: you mention the second aim of your study without mentioning its first aim.

Thank you for your remark. Indeed, we understand how our phrasing was confusing. We therefore modified our manuscript.

Manuscript modifications (introduction, page 3):

• Therefore, we aim to establish the predictive performance of a novel and objective definition of in-hospital immobilization using accelerometry.

In addition, the aims of the study are mentioned as follows in the Objectives and hypotheses section on page 4:

• “The primary objective is to prospectively validate the simplified Geneva score and to compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs (i.e., the original Geneva, Padua, and IMPROVE scores). Therefore, we hypothesize that the novel, easier-to-use simplified Geneva score will be able to accurately detect medical inpatients at risk of hospital-acquired VTE and that it will be at least as accurate as previously validated RAMs. Our second objective is to develop a new, objective, definition of inpatient immobilization using accelerometry and to compare its performance in predicting hospital-acquired VTE with that of the subjective measurement. Accordingly, we hypothesize that objective, accelerometry-assessed mobility will be more accurate in predicting the risk of hospital-acquired VTE than subjective physician perception and that its incorporation into the simplified Geneva score will improve its prognostic performance.”

 

Reviewer #2:

1. In this study authors sent the protocol for a prospective cohort study. The aim of the study was prospectively validate the simplified Geneva score and to examine the predictive performance of a novel and objective definition of in-hospital immobilization using accelerometry. Primary objective is to prospectively validate the simplified Geneva score and to compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs (i.e., the original Geneva, Padua, and IMPROVE scores). Second objective is to develop a new, objective, definition of inpatient immobilization using accelerometry and to compare its performance in predicting hospital acquired VTE with that of the subjective measurement. The work is well written, and the study design is quite robust, however, I would like to make a couple of comments/suggestions:

Thank you very much for your comment.

2. In the estimation of the sample size, “a 90-day incidence of hospital-acquired VTE of respectively 2.8% and 0.6%, in high risk and low risk patients respectively, has been taken into account”. In this sense, the percentages shown refer to percentages of VTE diagnosed with or without thromboprophylaxis? Has the number of patients who will receive thromboprophylaxis been taken into consideration? It is true that the authors comment that a sensitivity analysis adjusted for the use of thromboprophylaxis will be performed, but if this situation has not been previously taken into account, it could influence the statistical power.

Thank you for this important comment. The incidence of VTE is calculated taking into account the provision of thromboprophylaxis. For clearer comprehension, we modified the sentence on page 12 as follows:

“Based on a 2010 Swiss cohort study (13), we assume that that 67% of patients are categorized as high risk and 33% as low risk based on the simplified Geneva score and a 90-day incidence of hospital-acquired VTE with adequate thromboprophylaxis of 2.8% and 0.6%, in high risk and low risk patients, respectively, according to the simplified Geneva score (13). Therefore, we will need 1308 patients to detect an absolute risk difference of 2.2% between high and low risk patients, with a power of 80% at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05”

3. Page 10: the authors state that: the objective diagnosis of PE is based on available radiographic or autopsy reports (39-42). I don't know if I have come to understand this sentence, but the diagnosis of PE should be based on a CT-scan /angioCT

Indeed, we agree with the reviewer that this is confusing. We now modified the description on page 10:

“[…] the objective diagnostic of PE is based on available radiology (CT pulmonary angiography, pulmonary angiography, or ventilation-perfusion lung scan) or autopsy reports”.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (27.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Roza Chaireti

10 May 2022

RIsk Stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboEmbolism in medical patients (RISE): protocol for a prospective cohort study

PONE-D-21-33782R1

Dear Dr. Choffat,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Roza Chaireti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Authors have appropriately addressed all comments / suggestions.

No other comments

Congratulations

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Roza Chaireti

16 May 2022

PONE-D-21-33782R1

RIsk Stratification for hospital-acquired venous thromboEmbolism in medical patients (RISE): protocol for a prospective cohort study

Dear Dr. Choffat:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Roza Chaireti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Study protocol and synopsis submitted and accepted by the Ethics committee.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (2.3MB, pdf)
    S2 File. Approval letter of the Ethics committee of Bern (in German).

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (372.1KB, pdf)
    S3 File. Patient information sheet and informed consent (in German).

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (289.6KB, pdf)
    S4 File. Case-report form (baseline, discharge, follow-up at 90 days).

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (160.9KB, pdf)
    S5 File. Adjudication criteria.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (866.9KB, pdf)
    S6 File. Completed SPIRIT checklist.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (303.3KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (27.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES