MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2547716381 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.4218.4218

Venous Thromboembolism Validation Study of the IMPROVE Risk Assessment Models in the Medical Patient (VTE-VALOURR),

2011· article· en· W2547716381 sur OpenAlexaff
Charles E. Mahan, Yang Liu, James D. Douketis, Alexander G.G. Turpie, Undaleeb Dairkee, Alex C. Spyropoulos

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEmergency medicineRandomized controlled trialGuidelineRetrospective cohort studyRisk assessmentAtrial fibrillationIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 4218 Introduction. Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) remains the most common cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients despite more than 25 guidelines and over 5 decades of data on VTE prevention. American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and International Union of Angiology (IUA) guideline recommendations are primarily based off of risk factors utilized for entry into randomized controlled trials (RCT) or post-hoc analysis of these RCTs. These guidelines recommend a group-based, as opposed to an individualized risk assessment, approach. It is currently unknown how these risk factors interact in a quantitative manner. There are currently no weighted, validated, VTE risk assessment models (RAM) that are data-derived in medical patients. A retrospective VTE RAM (IMPACT ILL) was recently derived from the multinational IMPROVE registry in hospitalized medical patients. (Table 1) The “VTE-VALOURR ” is a retrospective, multi-center, case control, validation study of this RAM. The VTE-VALOURR is also assessing other VTE and bleeding risk factors. Methods. ICD-10 reports and the McMaster Transfusion Registry for Utilization Surveillance and Tracking (TRUST) database, which contains demographics, transfusion data, and approximately 50 clinical variables including thrombotic outcomes of inpatients, were used as the data source at 3 hospitals. Inclusion criteria were hospitalized medical patients ≥ 18 years with ≥ 3 days length of stay (LOS). Exclusion criteria were patients with pregnancy, mental health disorders, atrial fibrillation/ flutter, trauma, spinal cord injury, surgery within 90 days, VTE within 24 hours of admission, treatment dose anticoagulants (including warfarin) within 48 hours of admission, or transferred from a non-McMaster acute care facility. Lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism out to 90 days post admission were the thrombotic outcomes of interest and verified by chart review. Upper extremity DVT was excluded. Descriptive statistics (proportions and frequencies) were used to summarize binary variables. Results. From January 1st, 2005 to February 28th, 2011, 247,241 hospitalizations occurred at 3 McMaster hospitals. After exclusionary criteria were applied, 779 VTE events were identified. (Figure 1) Of these, 419 were excluded because they were VTE events not related to a previous hospitalization (i.e. community-acquired). Of the remaining 360 patients, 240 have been reviewed with 93 confirmed, included, VTE events having occurred, 147 events being further excluded, and another 120 patients still requiring review. We present an interim analysis of the 93 currently included patients. Of the included patients, 68 (73%) received some form of prophylaxis during their hospital stay while 35 (38%) received appropriate type, dose and duration of prophylaxis. Fifty-eight (62%) of VTE events were therefore “preventable.” Number of risk factors per patient and risk scores for the 93 patients are listed in tables 2 and 3. Conclusions. Validation of this VTE RAM will identify medical patients at risk of VTE that do not readily fit into group-specific VTE risk categories. Additionally, validation will identify subsets of patients at especially high risk of VTE and focus future randomized controlled trials. Other VTE risk factors may be identified with the study. Review of the 120 VTE cohort patients needs to be completed as well as review of a comparator control cohort. Approximately 80% of the current VTE cohort appears to have a score of 2 or above and be at moderate to high risk of VTE. Final results of approximately 150 VTE patients will be presented along with the control cohort as well as if the model is valid. Disclosures: Turpie: Astellas Pharma Europe: Consultancy; Bayer HealthCare AG: Consultancy; Portola Pharma: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,055
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,055
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,290

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0550,095
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→