MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124057402 · doi:10.1002/jhm.450

How complete is the evidence for thromboembolism prophylaxis in general medicine patients? A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

2009· review· en· W2124057402 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory M. Bump, Madhavi Dandu, Samuel R. Kaufman, Kaveh G Shojania, Scott A. Flanders

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskRandomized controlled trialPulmonary embolismMeta-analysisNumber needed to harmLow molecular weight heparinInternal medicineMEDLINEConfidence intervalDeep veinThrombosisIntensive care medicineSurgeryNumber needed to treat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis for hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thromboembolism. Despite recommendations, multiple studies demonstrate underutilization. Factors contributing to underutilization include uncertainty that prophylaxis reduces clinically relevant events, as well as questions about the best form of prophylaxis. We sought to determine whether prophylaxis decreases clinically significant events and to answer whether unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is either more effective or safer. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched through June 2008. Relevant bibliographies and conference proceedings were reviewed and LMWH manufacturers were contacted. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing UFH or LMWH to control, as well as head-to-head comparisons of UFH to LMWH in general medicine patients. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: End points of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), proximal or symptomatic DVT, pulmonary embolism, mortality, bleeding, and thrombocytopenia were extracted from individual trials. Pooled relative risks were calculated using random effects modeling. RESULTS: We identified 8 trials comparing prophylaxis to control, and 6 trials comparing UFH to LMWH. Prophylaxis reduced DVT (relative risk [RR] = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.92), proximal DVT (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.31-0.69), and pulmonary embolism (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53-0.93). Prophylaxis increased the risk of any bleeding (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.06) but not major bleeding. Across trials comparing LMWH to UFH, there were no differences for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Among medical patients, pharmacologic prophylaxis reduced the risk of thromboembolism without increasing risk of major bleeding. The current literature does not demonstrate superior efficacy of UFH or LMWH.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.170
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.170
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0330.051
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207