A Prospective Registry on Venous Thromboembolic Events: Findings from PROVE.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major health problem, especially in the elderly. A variety of intrinsic factors, acute medical illnesses and surgery have been shown to increase VTE risk. Despite this, VTE has not been adequately described in terms of clinical history, clinical risk factors and VTE prophylaxis. The objective of the Prospective Registry On Venous thromboembolic Events (PROVE) is to characterize the profile of patients with ultrasound-confirmed deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), the prior use and type of VTE prophylaxis and its relationship to demographic and comorbid factors. Methods PROVE is a multinational, multi-center, observational study. Patients were recruited during a 3 month period, beginning in February 2003, in centers possessing an ultrasound laboratory. Patients with ultrasound-confirmed DVT were consecutively enrolled. There were no exclusion criteria once DVT was diagnosed. Results Of 3527 enrolled patients in 254 centers in 19 countries (48% Asian and 52% non-Asian), data from 3508 (99%) were analyzable. Patients were: 51% male, mean age 53±18 years, mean BMI 26.0±5.1 kg/m2, 46.7% Caucasian, 47.1% Asian, 1.6% African and 4.4% other ethnicity. Patient status when DVT was diagnosed was: 59.7% home, 35.7% acute care hospital, 3.3% chronic care facility, 1.3% other. Locations of DVT were 25.0% calf only, 20.8% proximal without calf, and 58.9% proximal and calf. The incidences of idiopathic DVT, DVT following a precipitating factor, and recurrent DVT according to patient status at the time of diagnosis are shown in Table 1. Of patients who had a precipitating factor for DVT (see Table 2), 16% had received prior VTE prophylaxis. Types of VTE prophylaxis were: 53% low-molecular-weight heparin, 10% unfractionated heparin, 17% vitamin K antagonist, 29% elastic stockings, 2% venal caval filter, and 17% other. Conclusion Overall, the incidence of idiopathic DVT was similar to the incidence of DVT occurring after a precipitating event, as observed in other published studies. However, the incidence of idiopathic DVT was higher in patients at home at the time of diagnosis, while the incidence of DVT in patients with a precipitating factor was higher in acute care hospitals and chronic care facilities. The occurrence of DVT in patients who had received VTE prophylaxis may be due, at least in part, to the use of inadequate prophylaxis regimens. Table 1 Type of DVT according to patient status when DVT was diagnosed Patient status Idiopathic DVT,* n (%) DVT after a precipitating event,* n (%) Recurrent DVT,* n (%) * DVT was recorded as more than one type in some patients Home (N=2091) 1092 (52) 818 (39) 221 (11) Acute care hospital (N=1250) 396 (32) 807 (65) 74 (6) Chronic care facility (N=115) 35 (30) 64 (56) 16 (14) Other (N=45) 19 (42) 24 (53) 3 (7) Total 1542 (44) 1713 (49) 314 (9) Table 2 VTE prophylaxis received by patients with a precipitating factor for DVT (N=1715) Precipitating factor for DVT Patients with precipitating factor, n (%) Patients who had received VTE prophylaxis, n (%) Acute medical condition 775 (45) 92 (12) Surgery 498 (29) 124 (25) Trauma without surgery 239 (14) 44 (18) Pregnancy/postpartum 158 (5) 10 (6) Long airplane travel 56 (2) 3 (5)
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».