Diagnosis of Lower-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A National Survey Study of Physical Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prompt identification of outpatients who may have proximal lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (PDVT) is important, in part, because of the risk of pulmonary embolism. The purposes of our study were to determine the degree of accuracy of physical therapists' estimates of the probability of PDVT in hypothetical patient vignettes and to determine whether physical therapists would contact the referring physician about the hypothetical patients' condition as recommended in published evidence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A survey instrument consisting of 6 vignettes was sent to a nationally representative random sample of 1,500 physical therapists. The clinical decision rule developed by Wells and colleagues served as the gold standard for PDVT probability. RESULTS: A total of 969 (65% response rate) physical therapists completed the survey. We found no evidence of nonresponse bias. For the 2 high-probability vignettes, 87% and 64% of the physical therapists underestimated the probability of PDVT. For the 2 high-probability cases, 32% and 27% of the physical therapists reported that they would not have contacted the referring physician. For the 2 moderate-probability cases, 15% and 30% of the physical therapists would not have contacted the referring physician. Therapist experience, certification status, place of practice, and region of the country did not explain the findings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The care of outpatients who are at risk for PDVT could potentially be improved by use of the clinical decision rule developed by Wells and colleagues, although more study is warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".