MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097137672 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-133646

Neonates with Asymptomatic Central Venous Catheter-Related Thrombosis - a Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3097137672 on OpenAlexaff
Bader Allahyani, Abdullah Alanazi, Joshua D. Feder, Ewurabena Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticRetrospective cohort studyThrombosisCentral venous catheterProspective cohort studyCohort studyVenous thrombosisPediatricsRandomized controlled trialSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCatheter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Central venous catheters (CVCs) are the most frequent cause of thrombosis in acutely unwell neonates. The natural history CVC-RT remains unclear. The current guideline for symptomatic CVC-related thrombus suggests that anticoagulation likely leads to minimizing complications while the recommendation for pediatric patients with asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is equivocal. Objective: This systematic review was undertaken to summarize evidence from the pediatric literature on the prevalence of asymptomatic CVC-RT in the neonate and whether anticoagulation therapy (ACT) improves the outcomes of asymptomatic CVC-RT in the neonate. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science, and clinical trial databases. We considered data from retrospective and prospective cohort studies, case series, and randomized controlled studies evaluating the prevalence and outcomes of CVC-RT following the use or non-use of ACT. Data were analyzed using Fisher exact and Chi-square statistics. Results: In total 762 articles were identified and screened, of which 16 articles included (1 RCT, 4 prospective studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies, and 3 case reports) that met inclusion criteria and contained extracted case data; these studies reported on a total of 1909 neonates with CVC have been screened for thrombosis. All studies were considered at moderate or high risk of bias. Tau2 and I2 suggested a high degree of heterogeneity. Ultimately, 309 cases were identified with the prevalence of asymptomatic CVC-RT was 16%. Notably, only 6.5% of neonates with symptomatic CVC-RT had undergone ultrasound (US) screening. The majority of the cases were premature neonates. 45% of the neonate had Umbilical Vein Catcher (UVC). 114 (41%) of the cases received ACT, of which none complicated with major bleeding. Overall there was no difference following the use or nonuse of ACT in patency of the asymptomatic CVC-RT, recurrence, and thrombosis related mortality. The frequency of each outcome according to therapy is shown in Table1. CONCLOSION: This systematic review has provided additional evidence supporting the favorable outcome of asymptomatic CVC-RT in the neonate regardless of the use of ACT. Further well-designed, prospective, multi-center clinical trials are needed to establish evidence-based treatment recommendations for neonates with asymptomatic CVC-RT. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→