Use of elastic compression stockings after deep venous thrombosis: a comparison of practices and perceptions of thrombosis physicians and patients 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary. Daily long-term use of elastic compression stockings (ECS) by patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) may help to prevent the post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). However, the effectiveness of ECS in clinical practice is difficult to predict, since the practices and perceptions of patients and thrombosis physicians regarding ECS have not been documented. The objectives were to survey DVT patients and thrombosis physicians on their practices and perceptions regarding use of ECS after DVT, and to evaluate whether physician perceptions are supported by patient responses. Two surveys were conducted. The first was sent to 38 Canadian thrombosis physicians. The second was administered to 80 DVT patients attending Thrombosis Clinic at one of two Canadian university-affiliated hospitals. Most physicians believed that ECS were useful in preventing PTS and in managing venous symptoms. However, there was a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing of initiation of ECS, duration of therapy, and compression strength, and only one-third routinely prescribed ECS to asymptomatic patients to prevent PTS. Most DVT patients who were prescribed ECS purchased them, 87% wore them daily, and most reported that ECS relieved swelling and symptoms. Physicians underestimated the degree of patient compliance with ECS, but correctly identified the main reasons for non-compliance. There is a lack of consensus among thrombosis physicans regarding ECS use after DVT. Patients with DVTare willing to comply with ECS therapy and most find them to be helpful. Our findings suggest that long-term study of the optimal use of ECS after DVT is both necessary and feasible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".