Prevenção do tromboembolismo na cirurgia do câncer do aparelho digestivo Thromboembolism prevention in surgery of digestive cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RACIONAL: Tromboembolismo venoso é complicação frequente após tratamento cirúrgico em geral e, de um modo especial, na condução terapêutica do câncer. A cirurgia do aparelho digestivo tem sido referida como potencialmente indutora desta complicação. Os pacientes com câncer digestivo, têm risco substancialmente aumentado de iniciarem ou de terem recorrência de processo tromboembólico. OBJETIVO: Oferecer aos cirurgiões que atuam na cirurgia digestiva e geral orientação segura sobre como efetuar a tromboprofilaxia dos pacientes que necessitam de operações no tratamento de doenças malignas digestivas. MÉTODOS: A Diretriz foi baseada a partir da elaboração de 15 questões clínicas relevantes e relacionadas ao risco, tratamento e prognóstico do paciente submetido ao tratamento cirúrgico do câncer do aparelho digestivo. Elas focaram tanto os eventos tromboembólicos associados às operações quanto os aspectos relacionados à sua profilaxia. As questões foram estruturadas por meio do P.I.C.O. (Paciente, Intervenção ou Indicador, Comparação e Outcome), permitindo gerar estratégias de busca da evidência nas principais bases primárias de informação científica (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs/Scielo, Cochrane Library, Premedline via OVID). Também foi realizada busca manual da evidência e de teses (BDTD e IBICT). A evidência recuperada foi selecionada a partir da avaliação crítica utilizando instrumentos (escores) discriminatórios de acordo com a categoria da questão: risco, terapêutica e prognóstico (JADAD para Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados e New Castle Otawa Scale para estudos não randômicos). Após definir os estudos potenciais para sustento das recomendações, eles foram selecionados pela força da evidência e grau de recomendação segundo a classificação de Oxford, incluindo a evidência disponível de maior força. RESULTADOS: Foram avaliados 53.555 trabalhos pelo título e/ou resumo. Deste total foram selecionados (1ª seleção) 478 trabalhos avaliados pelo texto completo. A partir deles, para sustentar as recomendações, foram incluídos neste consenso 132 trabalhos. As 15 perguntas formuladas puderam ser respondidas com artigos com grau de evidência correspondentes à 31 A, 130 B, 1 C e 0 D. CONCLUSÃO: Esta revisão possibilitou elaborar orientação segura para a profilaxia do tromboembolismo nas operações sobre o câncer do aparelho digestivo, abordando os tópicos mais frequentes do quotidiano do trabalho dos cirurgiões gerais e do aparelho digestivo.<br>BACKGROUND: The venous thromboembolism is a common complication after surgical treatment in general and, in particular, on the therapeutic management on cancer. Surgery of the digestive tract has been reported to induce this complication. Patients with digestive cancer have substantial increased risk of initial or recurrent thromboembolism. AIM: To provide to surgeons working in digestive surgery and general surgery guidance on how to make safe thromboprophylaxis for patients requiring operations in the treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: The guideline was based on 15 relevant clinical issues and related to the risk factors, treatment and prognosis of the patient undergoing surgical treatment of cancer on digestive tract. They focused thromboembolic events associated with operations and thromboprophylaxis. The questions were structured using the PICO (Patient, Intervention or Indicator, Comparison and Outcome), allowing strategies to generate evidence on the main primary bases of scientific information (Medline / Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs / Scielo, Cochrane Library, PreMedline via OVID). Evidence manual search was also conducted (BDTD and IBICT). The evidence was recovered from the selected critical evaluation using discriminatory instruments (scores) according to the category of the question: risk, prognosis and therapy (JADAD Randomized Clinical Trials and New Castle Ottawa Scale for studies not randomized). After defining potential studies to support the recommendations, they were selected by the strength of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the classification of Oxford, including the available evidence of greater strength. RESULTS: A total of 53,555 papers by title and / or abstract related to issue were found. Of this total were selected (1st selection) 478 studies that were evaluated as full-text. From them to support the recommendations were included in the consensus 132 papers. The 15 questions could be answered with evidence grade of articles with 31 A, 130 B, 1 C and 0 D. CONCLUSION: It was possible to prepare safe recommendations as guidance for thromboembolism prophylaxis in operations on the digestive tract malignancies, addressing the most frequent topics of everyday work of digestive and general surgeons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".