Ambulation after Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the effects of early ambulation on development of pulmonary embolism (PE) and progression or development of a new thrombus in patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT). METHODS: Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2008. Study quality was appraised using the Jadad and PEDro scales. Meta-analyses were reported as relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Four randomized trials were accepted. For development of a PE, the pooled relative risks for ambulation and compression versus bed rest and compression (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.34-1.19) and for ambulation and compression versus bed rest alone (RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.57-3.29) were not significant. For progression of an existing thrombus or development of a new thrombus, the independent relative risks for ambulation and compression versus bed rest and compression (RR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.13-1.14) and for ambulation and compression versus bed rest alone (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.20-1.57) were also not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Given the clinical benefits of mobility, and because there was no significant difference between ambulation and bed rest for risk of developing a PE or development and progression of a new DVT in any of the studies, clinicians should be confident in prescribing ambulation in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".