MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2988018214 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122053

Pulmonary Embolism Home Treatment: What GP Want?

2019· article· en· W2988018214 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealthcare Systems and Practices
Établissements canadiensSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePulmonary embolismPediatricsClinical trialFamily medicineEmergency medicineOutpatient clinicInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: In routine clinical practice, in most countries, patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are hospitalized a few days for clinical surveillance and to start anticoagulant treatment. Clinical trials and guidelines suggest that patients with stable PE could safely be treated as outpatients. This shift in management may increase general practitioner (GP) role in PE early management. However, GP opinion and suggestion regarding PE home treatment has never been assessed. Methods: Phone survey conducted in France among a random sample of 360 GP working in 6 regions representative of national access to French healthcare system namely, Brittany, Centre, Ile de France (Paris), Languedoc-Roussillon, Nord Pas de Calais, Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur. Primary objective was to assess GP' acceptability to PE home treatment. Secondary objectives included GP' preferences in terms of PE outpatient pathway, their current exposure to and management of PE as well as their personal experience with PE initial outpatient management. Results: During two pre-specified campaigns of recruitment (March-June 2015 and June-August 2017), 564 GP were contacted in order to reach study expected sample size (participation rate: 64%, 180 GP recruited during in each campaign). Most GP (95%) stated that they manage suspicion of PE less than once every 6 months. Current PE patient pathway is presented in Figure 1. 21% of GP (n=76) have already managed at least one patient with acute PE in the outpatient setting and 87% of GP (n=312) were favorable to home treatment of stable PE. This latter rate was similar during the 2 campaigns of recruitment. GP practicing alone were less likely to accept outpatient management of PE than those who worked in collaboration with other physicians: OR=0.3 [0.1 - 0.9]. Main reasons for their refusal were perceived seriousness of disease (90% of cases) and bleeding risk (60%). Figure 2 summarizes GP' suggestions and agreement regarding PE outpatient pathway. As per GP', conditions for discharge from emergency room (ER) department should include a medical report immediately available at time of patient's discharge (100% of GP agreed with), absence of social and medical facility isolation of the patient (99% of GP agreed with) patient's (99% of GP agreed with) and GP's (74% of GP agreed with) consents and a phone call to GP (74% of GP agreed with) to communicate initial treatment (56% of GP agreed with) and to provide the phone number of the hospitalist on call (56% of GP agreed with). After patient's discharge, 86% (n=309) of GP felt that outpatient pathway should be collaborative with a thrombosis specialist and should include follow-up visits with a thrombosis specialist at one week (89%, n=290), 3-6 months (80%) and when anticoagulant treatment is stopped (97%). A similar proportion of GP wanted PE patients to be managed either exclusively by themselves (8%, n=27) or by a thrombosis specialist (7%, n=24). 61% (n=219) of GP felt that direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) should facilitate development of PE home treatment (16 did not, p<0.05) and that this should improve patient's quality of life. Conclusion: The vast majority of GP are favorable to stable PE home treatment if a formal outpatient pathway is established. DOAC are perceived as another key for the success of the development of PE home treatment. Disclosures Galanaud: BMS Pfizer: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Aspen: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,938
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,009

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 Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,424
Écart entre enseignants0,351 · 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