Benefits and Risks of Antithrombotic Therapy in Essential Thrombocythemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) are at high risk for both thrombosis and hemorrhage. PURPOSE: To evaluate the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy in adults with ET. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, through 4 March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and observational studies of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, published in any language and reporting thrombotic or hemorrhagic events. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: No relevant randomized trials were identified. Twenty-four observational studies (18 comparative and 6 single-group) involving 6153 patients followed for 31 711 patient-years were reviewed; most were deemed to have high risk of bias. Most patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (3613 of 4527 [80%]) received low-dose aspirin (50 to 150 mg/d); 914 (20%) received high-dose aspirin (300 to 600 mg/d), dipyridamole, or other agents. Overall, findings were inconsistent and imprecise. The reported incidence rates of thrombosis, any bleeding, and major bleeding without antiplatelet therapy ranged from 5 to 110 (median, 20), from 3 to 39 (median, 8), and from 2 to 53 (median, 6) cases per 1000 patient-years, respectively. The reported relative risks for thrombosis, any bleeding, and major bleeding with antiplatelet therapy compared with none ranged from 0.26 to 3.48 (median, 0.74), from 0.48 to 11.04 (median, 1.95), and from 0.48 to 5.17 (median, 1.30), respectively. Certainty of evidence was rated low or very low for all outcomes. LIMITATION: No randomized trials, no extractable data on anticoagulants, lack of uniform bleeding definitions, and systematic reporting of outcomes. CONCLUSION: Available evidence about the risk-benefit ratio of antiplatelet therapy in adults with ET is highly uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Regional Medical Associates. (PROSPERO: CRD42015027051).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".