Compression stockings to prevent postthrombotic syndrome: Literature overview and presentation of the CELEST trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a burdensome and costly complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that develops in 20%-40% of patients within 2 years after proximal DVT. In the absence of effective curative treatment, management of PTS relies on its prevention after DVT. The effectiveness of elastic compression stockings (ECS) to prevent PTS is uncertain. We present an overview of published studies assessing the efficacy of ECS to prevent PTS and present the protocol for the CELEST clinical trial. While previous open-label randomized trials have reported a 50% risk reduction in PTS in patients treated with >30 mm Hg ankle pressure ECS, a large double-blind trial reported no effect of ECS. We discuss the main potential limitations of these trials, including a placebo effect and suboptimal compliance to ECS. We present the protocol of the CELEST double-blind randomized trial comparing 2 years of high strength (ankle pressure 35 mm Hg) versus lower strength (ankle pressure 25 mm Hg) ECS in the prevention of PTS after a first acute symptomatic, unilateral, proximal DVT. The use of lower-strength ECS than that used in previous studies should favor compliance. CELEST may provide important evidence about the efficacy of ECS in the prevention of PTS after DVT. The results will be interpreted in the light of results from recent clinical trials assessing ECS for PTS prevention that reported that the duration of ECS use should be tailored to the individual, if ECS are efficacious in the prevention of PTS.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".