No abstract

Key Points• Upper limb PTS in children depends on DVT pathogenesis (primary vs secondary) and on the age of the patient (neonates vs non-neonates).• DVT pathogenesis and thrombus resolution are independent predictors of upper limb PTS in children.Despite its relatively estimated high occurrence, the characterization of pediatric upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE-DVT) and of UE postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is still lacking. We investigated the occurrence, characteristics, and predictors of UE-PTS in a cohort of children with objectively confirmed UE-DVT. Patients were analyzed in 3 groups according to DVT pathogenesis and neonatal status: primary (G1), secondary neonates (G2 neonates ), and non-neonates (G2 non-neonates ). A total of 158 children (23 G1, 25 G2 neonates , and 110 G2 non-neonates ) were included. The most common triggering factors were effort-related (87%) in G1 and central lines in G2 neonates (100%) and in G2 non-neonates (92%). PTS scores ‡1, as per the Modified Villalta Scale, were identified in 87% of primary patients, 16% of G2 neonates , and 49% of G2 non-neonates . Survival analysis showed that the time to PTS score ‡1 significantly differed among group (log-rank test P < .0001).A multivariable logistic regression showed that DVT pathogenesis and imaging-determined degree of thrombus resolution at the end of therapy were independent predictors of a PTS score ‡2. In conclusion, pediatric UE-PTS frequency and severity depend on UE-DVT pathogenesis (primary/secondary) and, within the secondary group, on patient's age. Line-related UE-PTS has a more benign course, particularly in neonates. (Blood. 2014;124(7):1166-1173

BackgroundThe aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to describe the fundamental differences between formative and reflective measurement models, and (2) to review the options proposed in the literature to obtain overall instrument summary scores, with a particular focus on formative models.MethodsAn extensive literature search was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ABI/INFORM, using “formative” and “reflective” as text words; relevant articles’ reference lists were hand searched.ResultsReflective models are most frequently scored by means of simple summation, which is consistent with the theory underlying these models. However, our review suggests that formative models might be better summarized using weighted combinations of indicators, since each indicator captures unique features of the underlying construct. For this purpose, indicator weights have been obtained using choice-based, statistical, researcher-based, and combined approaches.ConclusionWhereas simple summation is a theoretically justified scoring system for reflective measurement models, formative measures likely benefit from the use of weighted scores that preserve the contribution of each of the aspects of the construct.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1561-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.