Physical activity for children with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism on anticoagulation: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: There are no clear pediatric guidelines on the return to physical activity following deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), particularly while being treated with anticoagulation. Objective: This scoping review aimed to examine the current literature on physical activity beyond simple ambulation for patients with DVT/PE being treated with anticoagulation. Data Sources: An electronic search for articles in MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily (1946 to April 4, 2022), and Embase+Embase Classic (1946 to 2022, week 13) was conducted. Study Selection: (1) Patients of any age with DVT/PE, treated with anticoagulation; (2) studies of any design providing information on physical activity (ie, sport, exercise) while on anticoagulation; and (3) studies in English. Data Extraction: Data from eligible studies obtained included the study design, population, disease characteristics, and information on physical activity participation. Results: A total of 26 eligible studies were included. Only 2 studies were specific to children. Studies recommend a gradual return to participation in noncontact or low-risk activities after the first 3-4 weeks of anticoagulation, with close monitoring of symptoms. Participation in contact sports and activities is typically delayed until after anticoagulants are discontinued. However, personalized anticoagulation with intermittent dosing schedules has been proposed for athletes after the first 3 months of anticoagulation treatment. Conclusions: Physical activity participation guidelines for children with DVT/PE being treated with anticoagulation are needed, and the evidence currently available is limited. Largely based on evidence from adult patients, we present evidence-informed options to facilitate clinician recommendations for returning to activity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".