MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110733251 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200003

Effectiveness of ambulation to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to hospital: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3110733251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brandyn Lau, Patrick Murphy, Anthony J. Nastasi, Stella Seal, Peggy S. Kraus, Deborah B. Hobson, Dauryne L. Shaffer, Christine G. Holzmueller, Jonathan Aboagye, Michael B. Streiff, Elliott R. Haut

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyRegimenMEDLINEMeta-analysisVenous thrombosisConcomitantIncidence (geometry)Emergency medicineThrombosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient ambulation is frequently recommended to help prevent venous thromboembolism during hospital admission. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence for ambulation as a prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials indexed from their inception through April 2020 for studies of adult patients admitted to hospital, in which ambulation or mobilization alone or concomitant with prophylaxis was indicated for prevention of venous thromboembolism. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using 2 validated tools. We scored studies on quality of reporting, internal and external validity and study power; combined scores determined the overall quality. RESULTS: Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 retrospective and 2 prospective cohorts, 7 RCTs and 1 secondary analysis of an RCT. The intervention (ambulation or mobilized) groups varied across studies. Five studies examined exercise as a therapeutic prophylaxis for thrombosis and 9 described an ambulation protocol. Five studies attempted to quantify amount and duration of patient ambulation and 3 reported ambulation distance. In the 5 studies rated as good or excellent statistical quality, findings were mixed. Incidence of venous thromboembolism was lowest when pharmacologic anticoagulants were added as part of the prescribed prophylaxis regimen. INTERPRETATION: We did not find high-quality evidence supporting ambulation alone as an effective prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Ambulation should not be considered an adequate prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, nor as an adequate reason to discontinue pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during a patient's hospital admission.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207