Treatment of Superficial Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal first line treatment for patients with isolated superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) of the lower extremity is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This article reports estimates of the rate of venous thromboembolic complications among patients with SVT according to treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using unrestricted searches of electronic databases. Reported events were transformed to event per 100 patient-years of follow-up and a random effects model was used to calculate pooled rates according to pre-specified treatment categories. The primary outcome was the occurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) during the study follow-up period. RESULTS: = 18%). Pooled event rates for DVT or PE ranged from 9.3 to 16.6 events per 100 patient-years across other treatment categories, and the pooled event rate for no treatment/placebo was 10.5 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 3.0-22.0). Major bleeding was low and similar across all treatment categories. Heterogeneity was moderate to high for most pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: While pooled event rates suggest that fondaparinux achieves the lowest rate of DVT or PE, low-quality evidence for other treatments prevents firm conclusions about the optimal treatment for SVT.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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; 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".