Profilaxia do tromboembolismo venoso em viagens de longa duração
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Air travel can triple the risk of VTE. Family doctors can play a role in the prevention of this problem. The aim of this study was to review the evidence for prevention of thromboembolism on long-haul flights. Data sources: MEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Practice Guidelines Infobase, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines, The Cochrane Library, Clinical Evidence, DARE, Bandolier, Direção-Geral da Saúde and Sociedade Portuguesa de Medicina Interna. Revision methods: Guidelines, systematic reviews (SR), meta-analyses and original studies published between 2004 and 2014 were surveyed, using the keywords ‘venous thrombosis’, ‘prevention and control’ and ‘air travel’. To evaluate the levels of evidence and strength of recommendations, the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) scale of American Academy of Family Physicians was used. Results: Among the 121 articles found, 12 were selected including seven guidelines and five systematic reviews. Most articles stress the importance of individualized assessment of the risk of VTE before air travel. General measures are recommended for most of the population (SORT C). Elastic compression stockings should be used in people with risk factors and previous VTE (SORT B). Pharmacological prophylaxis can be reserved for high risk patients using low molecular weight heparin (SORT C). The use of aspirin is not recommended (SORT B). Conclusions: The findings are limited by the methodology of the studies, as well as by the population to which the results are applied. Until methodologically adequate studies are available, the decision regarding prophylaxis of VTE on long trips must be considered on an individual basis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".