MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301594658 · doi:10.7759/cureus.29933

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Use by Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeons in Canada for the Pediatric Orthopedic Surgical Population

2022· article· en· W4301594658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenna Curwin, Wyatt MacNevin, Ron El‐Hawary, Ketan Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryVenous thromboembolismDemographicsRespondentPopulationFamily medicineInstitutional review boardProtocol (science)PediatricsSurgeryAlternative medicineThrombosisDemographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction A novel pediatric venous thromboembolism (VTE) screening tool was implemented in 2016 at the Izaak Walton Killam (IWK) Health Centre, which safely reduced the use of thromboprophylaxis by 47.9% with no increase in VTE in the pediatric orthopedic surgical population (POSP). There is presently no data on the current practices or protocols for VTE prophylaxis for POSP in Canada. The present survey was designed to assess current practices regarding VTE prophylaxis for POSP in Canada. Methods After research ethics board (REB) approval, a 22-question survey was administered electronically to all Canadian Pediatric Orthopedic Group (CPOG) members. The survey contained questions on respondent demographics and background, current VTE prophylaxis practices and experiences including indications for prophylaxis, the existence of VTE protocols, and interest in utilizing VTE protocols. Descriptive statistical analyses and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were completed on the survey responses. Results Of the 100 CPOG members, 49 (49%) responded. Most respondents (51%, n=25/49) practice in Central Canada, 39% (n=19/49) practice in Western Canadian provinces, and a smaller portion practice in Atlantic Canada (10%, n=5/49). Of the respondents, 43% (n=21/49) indicated that they use pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in their practice, and 93% (n=27/29) stated that specific risk factors are indications of initiating pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Additionally, 57% (n=16/28) did not have a defined protocol for VTE prophylaxis, and 18% (n=5/28) were uncertain if they do. Of the respondents, 85% (n=22/26) were open to utilizing a VTE prophylaxis screening tool, and 12% (n=3/26) were uncertain if they would be. Conclusion This study has demonstrated that a uniform protocol for VTE prophylaxis does not exist in most Canadian centers, despite its need. There is nationwide interest in adopting a perioperative VTE prophylaxis screening tool to optimize pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis use in POSP. The goal of future research is the national implementation and standardization of such a screening tool through collaboration in a multicenter study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207