MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978067189 · doi:10.1177/1938640014546858

Deep-Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Foot and Ankle Surgery

2014· article· en· W1978067189 on OpenAlexaff
Kalpesh Shah, Gowreeson Thevendran, Alastair Younger, Stephen J. Pinney

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle Specialist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAmerican Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society
KeywordsMedicineFoot and ankle surgeryAnklePulmonary embolismFoot (prosody)Deep veinSurgeryIncidence (geometry)Orthopedic surgeryLow molecular weight heparinThrombosisPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: When contemplating thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery the potential for complications secondary to venous thromboembolism (VTE) must be balanced against the cost, risk, and effectiveness of prophylactic treatment. The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) following foot and ankle surgery is considerably lower than after hip or knee surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess current trends in practice regarding VTE prophylaxis among expert orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons. METHODS: An e-mail-based survey of active AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) committee members was conducted (n = 100). Surgeons were questioned as to their use, type, and duration of thromboprophylaxis following elective ankle fusion surgery. Scenarios included the following: (1) A 50-year-old woman with no risk factors; (2) a 50-year-old woman with a history of PE; and (3) a 35-year-old woman actively using birth control pills (BCPs). RESULTS: The response rate for the survey was 80% (80/100). Replies regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis were as follows: (1) in the absence of risk factors, 57% of respondents (45/80) answered, "No prophylaxis required"; (2) for the scenario in which the patient had experienced a previous PE, 97.5% of respondents (78/80) answered, "Yes" to prophylaxis use; (3) for the scenario in which the patient was on BCP, 61.3% of respondents (49/80) stated that they would give some type of thromboprophylaxis. The most commonly recommended methods of prophylaxis were aspirin, 49% (24/49), and low-molecular-weight heparin, 47% (23/49). The recommended length of time for thromboprophylaxis varied widely, from 1 day to more than 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: . There remains wide variation in the practice of deep-vein thrombosis thromboprophylaxis within the foot and ankle community. Because risks for foot and ankle patients differ from those in the well-studied areas of hip and knee, specific guidelines are needed for foot and ankle surgery. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level V: Expert Opinion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoot & Ankle SpecialistSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207