2022 Update of the Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics and Thrombolytics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) Domain 6: Defining rational use of thrombolytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review available evidence and establish guidelines related to the use of thrombolytics for the management of small animals with suspected or confirmed thrombosis. DESIGN: PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome) questions were formulated, and worksheets completed as part of a standardized and systematic literature evaluation. The population of interest included dogs and cats (considered separately) and arterial and venous thrombosis. The interventions assessed were the use of thrombolytics, compared to no thrombolytics, with or without anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents. Specific protocols for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator were also evaluated. Outcomes assessed included efficacy and safety. Relevant articles were categorized according to level of evidence, quality, and as to whether they supported, were neutral to, or opposed the PICO questions. Conclusions from the PICO worksheets were used to draft guidelines, which were subsequently refined via Delphi surveys undertaken by the Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics and Thrombolytics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) working group. RESULTS: Fourteen PICO questions were developed, generating 14 guidelines. The majority of the literature addressing the PICO questions in dogs is experimental studies (level of evidence 3), thus providing insufficient evidence to determine if thrombolysis improves patient-centered outcomes. In cats, literature was more limited and often neutral to the PICO questions, precluding strong evidence-based recommendations for thrombolytic use. Rather, for both species, suggestions are made regarding considerations for when thrombolytic drugs may be considered, the combination of thrombolytics with anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs, and the choice of thrombolytic agent. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial additional research is needed to address the role of thrombolytics for the treatment of arterial and venous thrombosis in dogs and cats. Clinical trials with patient-centered outcomes will be most valuable for addressing knowledge gaps in the field.
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 | 0.133 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".