MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: a systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines

2020· review· en· W3010494064 on OpenAlexaff
Itziar Etxeandia‐Ikobaltzeta, Yuan Zhang, Francesca Brundisini, Iván D. Flórez, Wojtek Wiercioch, Robby Nieuwlaat, Housne Begum, Carlos A. Cuello‐García, Yetiani Roldán, Ru Chen, Chengyi Ding, Rebecca L. Morgan, John J. Riva, Yuqing Zhang, Rana Charide, Arnav Agarwal, Sara Balduzzi, Gian Paolo Morgano, Juan José Yepes-Núñez, Yasir Rehman, Ignacio Neumann, Nicole Schwab, Tejan Baldeh, Cody Braun, María Francisca Rodríguez, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMcMaster University Medical CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEPsycINFOGuidelinePopulationThematic analysisFamily medicineMeta-analysisGrading (engineering)Venous thrombosisQualitative researchInternal medicineThrombosisPathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Values and preferences relate to the importance that patients place on health outcomes (eg, bleeding, having a deep venous thrombosis) and are essential when weighing benefits and harms in guideline recommendations. To inform the American Society of Hematology guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) disease, we conducted a systematic review of patients' values and preferences related to VTE. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to April of 2018 (PROSPERO-CRD42018094003). We included quantitative and qualitative studies. We followed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance for rating the certainty and presenting findings for quantitative research about the relative importance of health outcomes and a grounded theory approach for qualitative thematic synthesis. We identified 14 quantitative studies (2465 participants) describing the relative importance of VTE-related health states in a widely diverse population of patients, showing overall small to important impact on patients' lives (certainty of the evidence from low to moderate). Additionally, evidence from 34 quantitative studies (6424 participants) and 15 qualitative studies (570 participants) revealed that patients put higher value on VTE risk reduction than on the potential harms of the treatment (certainty of evidence from low to moderate). Studies also suggested a clear preference for oral medication over subcutaneous medication (moderate certainty). The observed variability in health state values may be a result of differences in the approaches used to elicit them and the diversity of included populations rather than true variability in values. This finding highlights the necessity to explore the variability induced by different approaches to ascertain values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207