The Frequency and Clinical Significance of Thrombocytopenia Complicating Critical Illness: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 4664 Background: The epidemiology of thrombocytopenia in critically ill patients has not been well characterized. The objective of this study was to systematically review the prevalence, incidence, risk factors for, and consequences of thrombocytopenia among critically ill patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry for controlled trials (until May 2010), and the Online Computer Library as well as bibliographies of relevant studies to identify investigations designed to examine the frequency, risk factors and/or outcomes associated with thrombocytopenia among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We selected studies, abstracted data and assessed methodological quality in duplicate, independently. Heterogeneity of design and analysis precluded statistical pooling of results. Results: We identified 23 studies (12 prospective) enrolling 6,568 patients from medical, surgical, mixed, cardiac or trauma ICUs. Prevalent thrombocytopenia (on ICU admission) occurred in 8.3 – 67.6% of patients; incident thrombocytopenia (developing during the course of the ICU stay) occurred in 13.0 – 44.1% patients. High illness severity, organ dysfunction, sepsis and renal failure were common risk factors. Only 1 study using multivariate analysis examined whether thrombocytopenia was associated with major bleeding but found no association. Six out of 8 studies using multivariate analysis found that thrombocytopenia increased the risk of death. Conclusion: The frequency of thrombocytopenia during critical illness varies widely based on case mix and definition. Thrombocytopenia appears to increase the risk of death after adjustment for confounding factors. The association between thrombocytopenia and bleeding in the ICU has not been adequately examined. Although thrombocytopenia was associated with poor outcomes in most studies, randomized trials of platelet transfusions or other interventions aimed at increasing the platelet count are needed to determine whether improvement of thrombocytopenia can modify these risks. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".