Post‐procedural bleeding rate and haemostatic treatment use for dental procedures before and after the implementation of a standardized protocol for people with inherited bleeding disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Persons with inherited bleeding disorders are at a substantial risk of bleeding following dental procedures. AIM: To compare the outcomes and use of haemostatic treatment pre- and post-implementation of a standardized protocol for dental procedures at a Hemophilia Treatment Centre. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of outpatient and inpatient dental procedures and maxillofacial surgeries sustained by people with bleeding disorders treated at a comprehensive Hemophilia Treatment Centre (2013-2020), comparing patients' outcomes before and after the introduction of the protocol in 2018. The protocol, built using a multidisciplinary approach, suggested haemostatic treatment based on the invasiveness of the dental procedure and the proposed anaesthesia. Our primary outcome was the rate of procedural bleeding leading to medical or dental reintervention within 10 days. Secondary outcomes included the use of systemic haemostatic treatment and treatment-related adverse effects. RESULTS: Overall, 137 dental procedures in 95 patients (median age: 29 years; 78% males; 74% haemophilia, 14% von Willebrand disease, 12% other disorders) were included. Seventeen procedural bleedings were reported (12.4%). Procedural bleeding occurred in 14.8% and 8.9% of patients in the control and intervention groups (p = .304). No major bleeding occurred. Tranexamic acid was used more consistently after protocol implementation (72.8% vs. 89.3%, p = .019), while factor concentrates use decreased (65.4% vs. 44.6%, p = .016), and desmopressin use remained constant (46.4% vs. 32.1%, p = .100). No treatment-related adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: The use of a standardized protocol increased the use of tranexamic acid, with a nonstatistically significant reduction in procedural bleeding rate.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".