MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2557709293 · doi:10.1182/blood.v108.11.626.626

Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis after Orthopedic Surgery (OS). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Proportions.

2006· review· en· W2557709293 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Lazo‐Langner, Doug Coyle, Nicholas Barrowman, Tim Ramsay, Philip S. Wells, Dimitrios Scarvelis, Melissa A. Forgie, Marc Rodger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisOrthopedic surgeryThrombosisPulmonary angiographyVenographySurgeryInternal medicineVenous thrombosisIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Major VTE is the most frequent complication of OS. Current recommendations are to administer prophylaxis with an anticoagulant agent for at least 7–10 days. Numerous studies have evaluated different agents for this purpose. Although the most recent studies are usually methodologically sound, several studies have been hampered by inappropriate designs and insufficient sample sizes. In order to help with the design of future trials we conducted a systematic review of randomized trials evaluating short-term (< 15 days) administration of anticoagulants for VTE prophylaxis in OS and performed a MA of simple proportions to estimate the overall incidence of major VTE (proximal VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE), or death from PE), total VTE (proximal and distal VTE, PE or death from PE), and major bleeding episodes (as defined by the authors and defined using a definition similar to the one proposed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-ISTH). We included randomized trials comparing different drugs for VTE prophylaxis in OS (hip and knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery) using systematic evaluation of VTE (ultrasound or venography, pulmonary angiography, tomographic angiography, or ventilation perfusion lung scan). Heterogeneity of proportions was evaluated using a chi ² test and pooled estimates of proportions were obtained using a fixed or a random effects model as appropriate. In the latter the weights were estimated as proposed by Laird and Mosteller. We retrieved 55 studies (135 research arms) which enrolled 42,131 patients. The percentage and variance of major and total VTE and major bleeding are shown in table 1. The total number of events and the number of evaluable patients are shown in table 2. We found differences in the percentage of clinical outcomes associated with the use of different agents for VTE prophylaxis after OS, however, because of the analytical strategy used no estimation of odds or risk reduction can be derived from this data. We believe that these estimates will be of help for the design of future studies.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.045
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→