Outcome Reporting in Studies on Perinatal Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review [28O]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The perinatal period places women at risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). This systematic review aims to identify variation in outcome reporting in studies on the prevention and management of VTE in pregnant women, as a preliminary step towards developing a core outcome set to standardize outcome reporting in studies on perinatal VTE. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and www.clinicaltrials.gov were searched for clinical trials, registrations and observational studies with over 10 participants published between 1998 and 2018. Titles and full texts were screened in duplicate. Studies were classified as those focusing on VTE prevention vs. management. Reported outcomes were categorized under mortality, clinical, functional, resource use and adverse events based on a taxonomy of outcomes for medical research. Proportions of studies reporting each outcome were determined. Definitions and measurement tools were noted for each outcome. RESULTS: Of 7541 results screened, 69 studies (36 prevention+33 management) were included. Of the 165 outcomes, 25 were related to the fetus. Maternal outcomes mostly represented the clinical domain (96/152), with fewer adverse events (31), resource use (7), mortality (3) and functioning (3). There was very little consistency in how outcomes were defined or measured. CONCLUSION: Variation in outcome reporting and measurement in studies on perinatal VTE presents challenges for study comparison and meta-analysis. Outcomes related to fetal wellbeing, adverse events, resource use and functioning are inadequately represented. Qualitative interviews with patients and care providers to determine their perception on these outcomes is an important step in developing this core outcome set.
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 | 0.129 | 0.373 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".