Practice patterns and preferences of obstetricians and gynecologists regarding thromboprophylaxis at the time of Cesarean section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our survey aimed to identify knowledge and application of guidelines in the United States by assessing practicing obstetricians and gynecologists (OBGYN) use of thromboprophylaxis, preferred methods and whether their type of practice influenced their choices. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was performed. A 21-item paper and electronic questionnaire was sent to each participant. A total of three mailings were carried out. RESULTS: In total, 400 OBGYN were invited to participate. Questionnaires were returned by 209 (52.3%), 157 (75.1%) of whom provided prenatal care within the last year. All respondents used at least one method of thromboprophylaxis routinely. About 92.4% used pneumatic compression devices. An equal proportion used unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin routinely (17.8%). About 19.1% routinely used combination prophylaxis. In total, 77.1% (n = 121) used the ACOG guidelines. Local hospital guidelines were referenced by 38.2% (n = 60). Other guidelines referenced were the ACCP guideline (n = 34, 21.7%) and several international guidelines (n = 5, 3.3%). CONCLUSION: Awareness of the risk of thromboembolism around delivery by cesarean section is high among OBGYN practitioners. Broadening guidelines to encompass all deliveries, not only cesareans, with a focus on identifying the patient at risk, would likely be successful.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".