Examining international practices in the management of pregnant women with von Willebrand disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of pregnant women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) is complex as physiological pregnancy-induced increases in plasma von Willebrand factor (VWF) may be blunted or absent. Women with VWD experience a heightened risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and special consideration must be given regarding neuraxial anesthesia (NA) and the need for prophylaxis at time of delivery. These challenges are compounded by a lack of robust evidence to guide clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To determine the current international clinical practices in the management of pregnancy for women with VWD, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) conducted an international survey of health-care providers (HCP). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two respondents from 39 countries were included in the final analysis. Variations in clinical practice were identified in antenatal (monitoring of plasma VWF and ferritin levels), peripartum (optimal plasma VWF target at delivery) and postpartum management (definitions used for PPH and postpartum monitoring). A key area of divergence was suitability for NA for women with type 2 and type 3 VWD, with many respondents advising against the use of NA even with VWF supplementation (29% type 2 VWD, 37% type 3 VWD) but others advising use once plasma VWF activity was >50 IU/dL (57% type 2 VWD; 50% type 3 VWD). CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlighted areas of uncertainty surrounding common management issues for pregnant women with VWD. These data underscore the need for international collaborative research efforts focused on peripartum management to improve care for pregnant women with VWD.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".