Use of decision aids for shared decision making in venous thromboembolism: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal care of patients with venous thromboembolism requires the input of patient preferences into clinical decision-making. However, the availability and impact of decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in care of venous thromboembolism is not well known. OBJECTIVES: To assess the availability, clinical impact and outcomes associated with the use of decision aids in patients with or at risk for venous thromboembolism. PATIENTS/METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed exploring the use of decision aids in patients with venous thromboembolism. Criteria for primary inclusion required use of patient values clarification in the decision aid. A secondary review without the requirement of a patient values clarification was performed to be more inclusive. The data was summarized such that knowledge gaps and opportunities for enquiry were identified. RESULTS: The primary review identified one study that explored the decision to extend anticoagulation in patients with a recent venous thromboembolism beyond the stipulated 3-month duration. The secondary review identified an additional study exploring the decision to undergo computer tomography testing in patients at low risk for pulmonary embolism in an emergency department setting. Both studies were of modest quality given a lack of control group for comparison analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous calls to increase use of shared decision-making, a paucity of data exists to help patients engage in the treatment decisions for venous thromboembolism. Future studies of additional VTE clinical decisions with longer-term clinical outcomes appear necessary.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".