Clinical practice guideline of the spanish society of oral surgery for oral surgery in patients with coagulation disorders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of patients treated with coagulation disorders, and more specifically with anticoagulant therapy, has increased worldwide in recent years due to increased life expectancy in developed countries. The protocols for managing this type of patient in oral surgery has varied over recent years, especially after the appearance of new direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The assessment of risk of bleeding in this type of patient when undergoing a surgical procedure continues to be a controversial issue for patients, dentists and general practitioners. The objective of this document is to offer recommendations, based on evidence, for decision making for patients with coagulopathies who require dental surgical intervention. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the indications of the "Preparation of Clinical Practice guidelines in the National Health System. Methodological manual", we gathered a group of experts who agreed on 15 PICO questions based on managing patients with coagulation disorders in dental surgical procedures, such as fitting of implants or dental extractions. RESULTS: The 15 PICO questions were answered based on the available evidence, being limited in most cases due to the lack of a control group. Two of the PICO questions were answered by the experts with a grade C recommendation, while the rest were answered with grade D. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight the need to undertake well designed clinical trials with control groups and with a representative sample size.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it