Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Below-knee Immobilisation of the Leg - survey of Current Practice in the Netherlands.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulant treatment might be used to prevent DVT and its complications in patients with leg immobilisation. METHODS: In April 2007, a questionnaire was sent to all 79 Dutch surgical and orthopaedic teaching hospitals and was used to obtain information in relation to use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with immobilisation for below-knee leg injuries in their department. RESULTS: A total of 79 questionnaires were sent, of which 69 were returned (response rate 88%). In total, 8 of the 69 departments never used thromboprophylaxis at all (12%), 27 of 61 (44%) only prescribed treatment in patients with a general elevated thrombosis risk. Nobody only treated specific injuries. Low molecular weight heparin was the most common agent by far, being prescribed in 95% of the cases. Also in 95% of the cases, the duration of treatment was the whole period of immobilisation. DISCUSSION: We aimed our survey at highlighting variation in practice among Dutch surgical and orthopaedic departments, regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis after immobilisation of the lower leg. We investigated the type of agent used, the timing and duration of the prophylaxis, and the use of a protocol. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial variation and inconsistency in practice among surgical and orthopaedic departments in the Netherlands due to different advices in clinical guidelines. Future guidelines should state a clear advice. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended by us for all patients with immobilisation for lower extremity injuries, irrespective of age and other risk factors. Further research is needed to evaluate cost effectiveness and the use of new thromboprophylactic agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".