Evaluating hemostatic thresholds for neuraxial anesthesia in adults with hemorrhagic disorders and tendencies: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuraxial anesthesia can be complicated by spinal or epidural hematoma and may result in permanent neurologic injury. There is a paucity of literature characterizing this serious complication in patients with congenital and acquired hemorrhagic disorders or tendencies. The objective of this scoping review was to describe the hemostatic laboratory parameters where neuraxial anesthesia has been administered with and without spinal and epidural hematoma in patients with preexisting hemorrhagic disorders and tendencies, including immune thrombocytopenia, gestational thrombocytopenia, thrombocytopenia associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, platelet function disorders, von Willebrand disease, coagulation factor deficiencies, and fibrinogen disorders. A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. Two authors independently reviewed all titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine study eligibility and extract data. Qualitative synthesis of 91 studies revealed significant gaps in our understanding of the risk of spinal and epidural hematoma in patients with hemorrhagic disorders and tendencies, including few studies of males and in nonobstetric settings. Most reviewed articles were small, retrospective studies at high risk for potential bias. With such low-quality data, we were unable to provide any true estimates of the risk of spinal or epidural hematoma for these patients, nor could we attribute any specific hemostatic or laboratory values to increased risk of hematoma. There is a need both for larger and more rigorously designed and reported studies on this subject and for structured, comprehensive recommendations for safe administration and removal of neuraxial anesthesia in patients with hemorrhagic disorders and tendencies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".