International Delphi survey of the ESTS/AATS/ISTH task force on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in thoracic surgery: the role of extended post-discharge prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolic events can be successfully prevented with chemical and/or mechanical prophylaxis measures, but evidence-based guidelines in thoracic surgery are limited, particularly regarding extended post-discharge prophylaxis. This study attempts to gather an international consensus on best practices to inform the development of such guidelines. METHODS: A series of 3 surveys was distributed to the ESTS/AATS/ISTH (European Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association of Thoracic Surgeons, International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis) venous thromboembolic events prophylaxis working group starting January 2017. This iterative Delphi consensus process sought to gather a consensus on (i) risk factors; (ii) preferred agents; (iii) duration; and (iv) perceived barriers to an extended thromboprophylaxis approach. Participant responses were expressed on a 10-point scale, and the results were summarized and circulated to all respondents in subsequent rounds. A coefficient of variance of ≤0.3 was identified pre hoc to identify agreement. RESULTS: A total of 21 Working Group members completed the surveys, composed of 19% non-surgeon thrombosis experts, and 48% from North America. Respondents largely saw agreement regarding risk factors that indicate a need for extended thromboprophylaxis. The group agreed that low-molecular-weight heparin is a suitable agent for use post-discharge, but there was a wide variety in response regarding agents, duration and barriers to extended prophylaxis, where no consensus was observed across the three rounds. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong agreement around indications for extended venous thromboembolic events thromboprophylaxis after thoracic surgery, but there is little consensus regarding the agents and duration to be employed. Further research is required to better inform guideline development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".