Postpartum venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may cause more harm than benefit: a critical analysis of international guidelines through an evidence‐based lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on prediction models and expert opinion, most obstetric venous thromboembolism guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for many postpartum women, including most delivering by caesarean. Scrutiny reveals major oversights: prediction models are based on studies that report asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis; risk estimates are not adjusted for time exposure; and harm caused by heparin has been overlooked. The benefits of heparin are exaggerated and its harms are under-appreciated. Estimates of the numbers-needed-to-treat and harm are universally lacking. This paper critically reviews the evidence and quantifies the benefit and harm from low-molecular-weight heparin in postpartum women with common risk factors. FUNDING: This work was unsponsored and unfunded. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Randomised trials should demonstrate more benefit than harm before widespread postpartum low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".