Prevention and Treatment of Postphlebitic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The true incidence of postphlebitic syndrome (PPS) following proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and the efficacy of graduated compression stockings in preventing and treating PPS are unknown. METHODS: A 3-part study of 202 patients evaluated 1 year after proximal DVT: 2 randomized placebo-controlled trials of stockings and 1 prospective cohort of untreated patients. Patients were evaluated for PPS, using a standardized questionnaire, and for venous valvular incompetence, using photoplethysmography and venous Doppler. They were enrolled in study 1 or study 2 if they did not have symptomatic PPS and did not have or had venous valvular incompetence, respectively, and into study 3 if they had symptomatic PPS. Study 1 patients were left untreated and followed up for development of PPS every 6 months for a mean of 55 months. Study 2 patients were randomized to a below-knee stocking (20-30 mm Hg) or a matched placebo stocking, and followed up for development of PPS every 6 months for a mean of 57 months. Study 3 patients were randomized to an active stocking (30-40 mm Hg) or a matched placebo stocking and followed up every 3 months for treatment failure, defined a priori. RESULTS: In study 1, 6 (5.0%) of 120 patients were categorized as treatment failures, a rate similar to placebo-treated study 2 patients (P =.10). In study 2, 0 (0%) of 24 active and 1 (4.3%) of 23 placebo-treated patients were categorized as treatment failures (P =.49). In study 3, 11 (61.1%) of 18 active and 10 (58.8%) of 17 placebo-treated patients were categorized as treatment failures (P>.99). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients do not have PPS 1 year after proximal DVT, and do not require stockings. We failed to show a benefit of stockings in patients with PPS, but the small numbers preclude definitive conclusions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".