Dental surgery for patients on anticoagulant therapy with warfarin: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of continuing warfarin therapy on the bleeding risk of patients undergoing elective dental surgical procedures. METHODS: Data sources were the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, a manual citation review of the relevant literature, content experts and relevant abstracts from the proceedings of the International Association for Dental Research. Study selection was carried out independently by 2 reviewers, as was quality assessment. Data extraction was done by 3 reviewers. Differences were resolved by consensus. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of continuing the regular dose of warfarin therapy with the effects of discontinuing or modifying the dose on the incidence of bleeding in patients undergoing dental procedures. RESULTS: Five trials (a total of 553 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with interrupting warfarin therapy (either partial or complete), perioperative continuation of warfarin with patients" usual dose was not associated with an increased risk for clinically significant nonmajor bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-1.28; p = 0.65; I2 = 0%) or an increased risk for minor bleeding (RR, 1.19; 95% CI: 0.90-1.58; p = 0.22; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Continuing the regular dose of warfarin therapy does not seem to confer an increased risk of bleeding compared with discontinuing or modifying the warfarin dose for patients undergoing minor dental procedures.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it