Incidence of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Women during pregnancy or puerperium have a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The reported incidence of pregnancy-associated VTE from literature varied considerably. To summarize the overall incidence of the disease, we conducted this meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBase and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for studies that reported the incidence of VTE during pregnancy or puerperium. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the meta-analysis was conducted using R software and Meta analyst Beta 3.13. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the robustness of the results and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence rate was 1.4‰ (1.0-1.8‰) for VTE, 1.1‰ (1.0-1.3‰) for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and 0.3‰ (0.2-0.4‰) for pulmonary embolism (PE). The weighted proportion of VTE postpartum was 57.5% and the pooled proportion of right-sided DVT was 27.9%. We noted substantial heterogeneity among individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: Women during pregnancy or puerperium are associated with a higher morbidity of VTE. Physicians should be of high vigilance to pregnancy-associated VTE, especially for women postpartum.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".