MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continued Antiplatelet Therapy and Risk of Bleeding in Gastrointestinal Procedures: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2255144061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiao Fang, Jacques Baillargeon, Daniel C. Jupiter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClopidogrelAspirinPerioperativeCINAHLGastrointestinal bleedingMEDLINEPlatelet aggregation inhibitorSurgerySystematic reviewCochrane LibraryInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Management of perioperative antiplatelet medications in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery is challenging. The risk of intraoperative and postoperative bleeding is associated with perioperative use of antiplatelet medication. However, cessation of these drugs may be unsafe for patients who are required to maintain antiplatelet use due to cardiovascular conditions. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the risk of intraoperative or postoperative bleeding among patients who had GI surgery while on continuous antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, or dual therapy) with the risk among those not taking continuous antiplatelet medication. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed articles published between January 2000 and July 2015 from the Medline Ovid and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Studies involving any GI procedures were included if the articles met our inclusion criteria (listed in Methods). The following key words were used for the search: clopidogrel, Plavix, aspirin, antiplatelet, bleeding, hemorrhage, and digestive system surgical procedures. Quality of the studies was assessed, depending on their study design, using the Newcastle-Ottawa score or the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Five showed that the risk of intraoperative bleeding or postoperative bleeding among patients who had GI surgery while on continuous antiplatelet therapy was higher compared that for those not on continuous therapy. The remaining 17 studies reported that there was no statistically significant difference in the risks of bleeding between the continuous antiplatelet therapy group and the group without continuous antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of bleeding associated with GI procedures in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy was not significantly higher than in patients with no antiplatelet or interrupted antiplatelet therapy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207