MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073700468 · doi:10.1136/bmj.d813

Risk of recurrence after venous thromboembolism in men and women: patient level meta-analysis

2011· review· en· W2073700468 on OpenAlexafffund
James Douketis, Alberto Tosetto, Maura Marcucci, Trevor Baglin, Benilde Cosmi, Mary Cushman, Paul A. Kyrle, Daniela Poli, Robert C. Tait, Alfonso Iorio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteFondation Pour La Conservation Du Saumon AtlantiqueOesterreichische Nationalbank
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioVenous thromboembolismConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Risk factorCINAHLRelative riskMeta-analysisPulmonary embolismInternal medicineSurgeryThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of sex on the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in all patients and in patients with venous thromboembolism that was unprovoked or provoked (by non-hormonal factors). Data source Comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) until July 2010, supplemented by review of conference abstracts and contact with content experts. STUDY SELECTION: Seven prospective studies investigating an association between D-dimer, measured after anticoagulation was stopped, and disease recurrence in patients with venous thromboembolism. DATA EXTRACTION: Patient level databases were obtained, transferred to a central database, checked, and completed with further information provided by authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: 2554 patients with a first venous thromboembolism had follow-up for a mean of 27.1 (SD 19.6) months. The one year incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism was 5.3% (95% confidence interval 4.1% to 6.7%) in women and 9.5% (7.9% to 11.4%) in men, and the three year incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (7.3% to 11.3%) in women and 19.7% (16.5% to 23.4%) in men. Among patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism, men had a higher risk of recurrence than did women (hazard ratio 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.8). After adjustment for women with hormone associated initial venous thromboembolism, the risk of recurrence remained higher in men (hazard ratio 1.8, 1.4 to 2.5). In patients with provoked venous thromboembolism, occurring after exposure to a major risk factor, recurrence of disease did not differ between men and women (hazard ratio 1.2, 0.6 to 2.4). In women with hormone associated venous thromboembolism and no other risk factors, recurrence was lower than that in women with unprovoked venous thromboembolism and no previous hormone use (hazard ratio 0.5, 0.3 to 0.8). CONCLUSION: In patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism, men have a 2.2-fold higher risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism than do women, which remained 1.8-fold higher in men after adjustment for previous hormone associated venous thromboembolism in women. In patients with a first provoked venous thromboembolism, risk of recurrence does not differ between men and women with or without hormone associated venous thromboembolism. Indefinite anticoagulation may be given greater consideration in men than in women after a first venous thromboembolism.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations274
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207