Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is diagnosed, prompt evaluation and therapeutic intervention are of paramount importance for improvement in patient-important outcomes. We systematically reviewed patient-important outcomes in patients with suspected DVT, including mortality, incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and DVT, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and postthrombotic sequelae. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline, Embase for eligible studies, references lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. Two investigators screened and abstracted data. Nine studies with 5126 patients were included for lower extremity DVT. Three studies with 500 patients were included for upper extremity DVT. Among patients with lower extremity DVT, 0.85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 2.10%) and 0% developed recurrent DVT and PE, respectively, at 3 months. Among patients with upper extremity DVT, 0.49% (95% CI, 0% to 1.16%) and 1.98% (95% CI, 0.62% to 3.33%) developed recurrent DVT and PE, respectively, at 3 months. No major bleeding events were reported for those anticoagulated, which is lower than in other systematic reviews. For both upper and lower extremity DVT, low pretest probability patients with a negative D-dimer had a comparable incidence of VTE at 3 months (∼1%) as patients with a negative ultrasound (US). At higher pretest probabilities, negative US testing with or without serial US appears to be the safer option. In this review, we summarized the outcomes of patients evaluated by various diagnostic pathways. In most instances, there was significant limitation due to small population size or lack of direct evidence of effects of using a specific pathway. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42018100502.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".