Extended‐duration thromboprophylaxis for abdominopelvic surgery: Development and evaluation of a risk‐stratified patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Extended-duration thromboprophylaxis is used to decrease risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after surgery but may increase the risk of bleeding. The decision to complete a course of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis can be challenging. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop an acceptable patient decision aid (PtDA) to facilitate shared decision making for the use of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis following major abdominal surgery. Methods: An evidence-based, risk-stratified PtDA was created. The evidence on benefits and harms of a 28-day postoperative course of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus in-hospital prophylaxis only were synthesized. Outcomes included minor bleeding, major bleeding, clinically significant VTE, and fatal VTE. Risks were calculated and reported by Caprini score. Alpha testing of the PtDA draft with various stakeholders was performed using a 10-question survey to assess acceptability of the PtDA with patients, thrombosis experts, and surgeons. The primary outcome was the acceptability of the PtDA. Results: Acceptability testing was performed with 11 patients, 11 thrombosis experts, and 11 surgeons. Most responders felt the language on the PtDA was easy to follow (28/33, 85%), and that the information was well balanced between management options (9/11 [82%] patients; 17/21 [80%] clinicians). Most patients (9/11, 82%) and clinicians (18/22, 82%) believed it would be a useful clinical tool, and were satisfied with the overall quality of the PtDA (27/33, 82%). Conclusions: A risk-stratified, evidence-based PtDA was created to facilitate shared decision making for the use of extended-duration LMWH following major abdominal surgery. This clinical tool was acceptable with patients and physicians and is available at https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decaids.html.
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 | 0.035 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".