Extended thromboprophylaxis following colorectal surgery in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a comprehensive systematic clinical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) following major abdominal surgery. The pathogenesis is multifactorial and not fully understood. A combination of pathophysiology, patient and surgical risk factors increase the risk of postoperative VTE in these patients. Despite being at increased risk, IBD patients are not regularly prescribed extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis following colorectal surgery. Currently, there is a paucity of evidence-based guidelines. Thus, the aim of this review is to evaluate the role of extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in IBD patients undergoing colorectal surgery. METHOD: A search of Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases was performed. A qualitative analysis was performed using 10 clinical questions developed by colorectal surgeons and a thrombosis haematologist. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 1229 studies were identified, 38 of which met the final inclusion criteria (37 retrospective, one case-control). Rates of postoperative VTE ranged between 0.6% and 8.9%. Patient-specific risk factors for postoperative VTE included ulcerative colitis, increased age and obesity. Surgery-specific risk factors for postoperative VTE included open surgery, emergent surgery and ileostomy creation. Patients with IBD were more frequently at increased risk in the included studies for postoperative VTE than patients with colorectal cancer. The risk of bias assessment demonstrated low risk of bias in patient selection and comparability, with variable risk of bias in reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of evidence regarding the use of extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients with IBD following colorectal surgery. As these patients are at heightened risk of postoperative VTE, future study and consideration of the use of extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".