MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vitamin K for reversal of excessive vitamin K antagonist anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2921760415 on OpenAlex
Rasha Khatib, Maja Ludwikowska, Daniel M. Witt, Jack Ansell, Nathan P. Clark, Anne Holbrook, Wojtek Wiercioch, Holger J. Schünemann, Robby Nieuwlaat

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVitamin K antagonistConfidence intervalRelative riskMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECochrane LibraryInternal medicineVitamin kQuality of evidenceWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with an international normalized ratio (INR) between 4.5 and 10 are at increased risk of bleeding. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of administering vitamin K in patients receiving VKA therapy with INR between 4.5 and 10 and without bleeding. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials in April 2018. Search strategy included terms vitamin K administration and VKA-related terms. Reference lists of relevant studies were reviewed, and experts in the field were contacted for relevant papers. Two investigators independently screened and collected data. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Six studies (1074 participants) were included in the review and meta-analyses. Pooled estimates indicate a nonsignificant increased risk of mortality (RR = 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-2.47), bleeding (RR = 2.24; 95% CI, 0.81-7.27), and thromboembolism (RR = 1.29; 95% CI, 0.35-4.78) for vitamin K administration, with moderate certainty of the evidence resulting from serious imprecision as CIs included potential for benefit and harm. Patients receiving vitamin K had a nonsignificant increase in the likelihood of reaching goal INR (1.95; 95% CI, 0.88-4.33), with very low certainty of the evidence resulting from serious risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Our findings indicate that patients on VKA therapy who have an INR between 4.5 and 10.0 without bleeding are not likely to benefit from vitamin K administration in addition to temporary VKA cessation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.274 · 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