Effectiveness of Initiating Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Patients With Stroke: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and potentially fatal complication of immobility caused by cerebrovascular disease. This review examines the efficiency of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis methods. Patients with stroke initiated on DVT prophylaxis were compared with those who did not have any prophylaxis. Integrative review research design was used and included articles from 2010 to 2016. Search terms such as "DVT prophylaxis" and "stroke" were used to identify scientific publications. Of 173 studies identified, 12 articles were included and rated using the Canadian Medical Association and Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Level of Evidence ranking system. Of DVT prophylaxis methods identified, intermittent pneumatic compression device was superior to antiembolic stockings. Current data showed that the stockings were insufficient in preventing VTE. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin were efficient chemoprophylaxis in reducing the incidence of VTE. The combination of chemical and mechanical DVT prevention 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".