MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586002753 · doi:10.2147/orr.s105227

Rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism prevention after major orthopedic surgery: translating trial data into routine clinical practice

2017· review· en· W2586002753 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Beyer‐Westendorf, Patrick Mouret, Alexander G.G. Turpie

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopedic Research and Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsBayer HealthCareJanssen Research and DevelopmentJanssen Scientific Affairs
KeywordsRivaroxabanMedicineOrthopedic surgeryVitamin K antagonistClinical trialIntensive care medicineVenous thromboembolismTranexamic acidAnticoagulantRandomized controlled trialSurgeryWarfarinInternal medicineThrombosisAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An established standard of care for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after major orthopedic surgery has been subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin. The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has demonstrated superior efficacy and similar safety to all tested regimens of enoxaparin in large Phase III clinical studies of venous thromboembolism prevention after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. Despite regulatory approval of rivaroxaban for this indication, concerns remain among physicians regarding its optimal and effective use in routine clinical practice. Real-life studies, such as XAMOS and ORTHO-TEP, are providing physicians with more information on the routine use of rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism prevention after orthopedic surgery, helping to establish its safety and effectiveness in everyday clinical care. Among the most important issues are the risk of bleeding complications, wound healing, timing of first dose, impact of type of anesthesia on thromboprophylaxis effectiveness, patient comorbidities and comedication use, periprocedural management, associated costs, and clinical outcomes in trauma-related fractures. Many of these issues are difficult to study in randomized, double-blind, Phase III trials, and can be assessed more readily using real-life data. In particular, real-life or noninterventional studies lack many of the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria associated with Phase III trials and involve unselected patients who often present with significant comorbidities or comedication use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.683
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.056 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopedic Research and ReviewsSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207