MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2593772298 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.243.243

Safety of Excluding Suspected Deep Vein Thrombosis with a Single Whole-Leg Compression Ultrasound: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

2009· article· en· W2593772298 on OpenAlexaff
Stacy A. Johnson, Scott M. Stevens, Scott C. Woller, Erica Lake, Marco Paolo Donadini, James D. Douketis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeep veinThrombosisPulmonary embolismMeta-analysisSurgeryRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEVenous thrombosisProspective cohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 243 Background: In patients with suspected lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), compression ultrasonography (CUS) is typically used as the initial test to confirm or exclude DVT. Patients with a negative CUS and either a moderate-to-high probability and/or a positive D-dimer usually require repeat CUS testing after 5–7 days to exclude proximal propagation of distal DVT, reducing diagnostic efficiency. Whole-leg compression ultrasound may safely exclude proximal and distal DVT in a single evaluation. Purpose: To assess the safety of withholding anticoagulation in patients presenting with suspected lower extremity DVT following a single negative whole-leg CUS. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, Cochrane, Health Technology Assessments databases were searched from January 1970 to April 2009 without language restrictions. This search was supplemented by reviewing Google, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, meeting abstracts, conference proceedings, reference lists, and by contacting content experts. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies of patients with suspected DVT with a negative whole-leg CUS, not treated with anticoagulation, and followed at least 90 days for occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Studies required objective confirmation of VTE events during follow-up. Two authors independently reviewed articles and extracted data. Results: Six studies were included totaling 4,229 patients with negative whole-leg CUS exams and not receiving anticoagulation. VTE or suspected VTE-related death occurred within the follow-up period in 24 (0.6%) patients. Of these 24 events, 9 (37.5%) were distal DVT, 7 (29.2%) were proximal DVT, 6 (25.0%) were non-fatal pulmonary embolism, and 2 (8.3%) were deaths, possibly related to VTE. Combined VTE event rate at 3 months was 0.46% (95% CI 0.22, 0.70). Limitations: Pretest probability assessment was not available for all analyzed patients. Conclusions: Withholding anticoagulation in patients with suspected DVT based on a single whole-leg CUS is associated with a low risk of VTE (0.46%) during 3 months of follow-up. This strategy represents a safe and efficient alternative to serial CUS testing in patients with suspected DVT. 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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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