Management of mitral stenosis: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of guidelines exist with recommendations for diagnosis and management of mitral stenosis (MS). We systematically reviewed existing guidelines for diagnosis and management of MS, highlighting their similarities and differences, in order to guide clinical decision-making. We searched national and international guidelines in MEDLINE and EMBASE (5/4/2011-5/9/2021), the Guidelines International Network, Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and the full text of potentially relevant articles where needed. Selected guidelines were assessed for rigor of development; only guidelines with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument score >50% were included in the final analysis. Four guidelines were retained for analysis. There was consensus for percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy as first-line treatment of symptomatic severe rheumatic MS with suitable anatomy. In patients with unfavourable anatomy, surgical intervention should be considered. Exercise testing is indicated if discrepancy exists between symptoms and echocardiographic measurements. There was no clear divide between rheumatic MS and degenerative MS for their respective diagnoses and management. Pregnancy in severe MS is discouraged and the stenosis should be treated before conception. Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for patients with rheumatic MS. Recommendations for the management of patients with mixed valvular diseases are lacking.
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 | 0.023 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".