MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991571574 · doi:10.3810/hp.2011.08.574

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Hospital Discharge: Transition to Preventive Care

2011· review· en· W1991571574 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Kaatz, Alex C. Spyropoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueHospital Practice · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean Society for Medical OncologyNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAssociazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismReimbursementMedicaidGuidelineDeep veinVenous thromboembolismIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineThrombosisHealth careSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, the common clinical manifestations of venous thromboembolism (VTE), are among the most preventable complications of hospitalized patients. However, survey data repeatedly show poor rates of compliance with guideline-based preventive strategies. This has led the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to deny reimbursement for hospital readmission for thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. Multiple strategies and national initiatives have been developed to improve rates of VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization; however, most VTE occurs in the outpatient setting. Epidemiologic data suggest that recent surgery or hospitalization is a strong risk factor for the development of VTE and that this risk may persist for up to 6 months. These observations call into question whether VTE prophylaxis should be administered only during hospitalization or if this preventive strategy should be continued after hospital discharge. Many of the randomized trials showing efficacy of VTE prophylaxis have used longer durations of prophylaxis than are typical for current length of hospital stay, highlighting the issue of how long the duration of prophylaxis should be. Several patient groups have undergone formal testing to evaluate the risks and benefits of extended-duration VTE prophylaxis, but this issue is less clear for other categories of patients. Although there is clear consensus that most hospitalized patients should receive VTE prophylaxis, there is uncertainty about whether to continue VTE prophylaxis in the immediate post-hospital period or for an extended duration. The transition from inpatient to outpatient care is a key event in the coordination of continuity of care, but VTE-specific care transition guidance is limited. In this article, we review the evidence for both standard- and extended-duration VTE prophylaxis and discuss the difficulties in effectively maintaining VTE prophylaxis during the transition from inpatient to outpatient care.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHospital PracticeSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207