MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580969230 · doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.01.38

Practice patterns in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in thoracic surgery: a comprehensive Canadian Delphi survey

2017· article· en· W2580969230 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Agzarian, Lori‐Ann Linkins, Laura Schneider, Waël C. Hanna, Christian Finley, Colin Schieman, Marc de Perrot, Mark Crowther, James Douketis, Yaron Shargall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Disease · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenous thromboembolismCardiothoracic surgeryDelphi methodDelphiIntensive care medicineGeneral surgerySurgeryThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) after resection of thoracic malignancies can reach 15%, but prophylaxis guidelines are yet to be established. We aimed to survey Canadian practitioners regarding perioperative risk factors for VTE, impact of those factors on extended prophylaxis selection, type of preferred prophylaxis, and timing of initiation and duration of thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: A modified Delphi survey was undertaken over three rounds with thoracic surgeons, thoracic anesthesiologists and thrombosis experts across Canada. Participants were asked to rate each parameter on a ten-point scale. Agreement was determined a priori as an item reaching a coefficient of variation of ≤30% (0.3), with the item then discontinued from later rounds. RESULTS: In total, 72, 57 and 50 respondents participated in three consecutive rounds, respectively. Consensus was reached on previous VTE, age, cancer diagnosis, thrombophilia, poor mobilization, extended resections, and pre-operative chemotherapy as risk factors. Consensus on risk factors impacting extended prophylaxis decisions was achieved on cancer diagnosis, obesity, previous VTE and poor mobilization. With respect to perioperative prophylaxis, once daily low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was the only parameter that demonstrated agreement as a common practice pattern. No agreement was achieved regarding the role of mechanical prophylaxis, unfractionated heparin (UFH) or timing of initiation of peri-operative treatment. VTE prophylaxis until discharge reached agreement but there was substantial variability regarding the role of extended prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: There is agreement between Canadian clinicians treating patients with thoracic malignancies regarding most risk factors for VTE, but there is no agreement on timing of initiation of prophylaxis, the agents used or factors mandating usage of extended prophylaxis.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic DiseaseSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207