Management and outcomes of superficial vein thrombosis: a single-center retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Guidelines suggest but cannot recommend the optimal management of superficial vein thrombosis (SVT). Objectives: To identify the prevalence of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) at the time of SVT diagnosis, and to report the treatment and 3-month complications of patients with only SVT more than 3 cm from deep vein junction (or unknown distance). Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of patients referred to the Ottawa Hospital thrombosis unit with ultrasound (US)-diagnosed SVT, and followed patients with only SVT for 3 months. Results: Three hundred sixteen patients with SVT were included. Of the 218 patients without DVT symptoms at presentation, 19 (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.7%-13.2%) were found to have asymptomatic concomitant DVT (11 proximal and 8 distal), and 45 (20.6%) had SVT within 3 cm of the saphenofemoral or saphenopopliteal junctions. Among the 192 patients diagnosed with SVT only, we observed 3-month thrombotic complications in 56 (29.2%; 95% CI, 23.2%-36.0%) patients, with a total of 69 events: 11 (5.7%) DVTs, 2 (1.0%) pulmonary embolisms, 37 (19.2%) SVT extensions, and 19 (9.8%) SVT recurrences. Eighty-two percent (9/11) of the 3-month DVT and pulmonary embolism events occurred in patients who initially received conservative management. Therapeutic treatment doses were most effective. Conclusion: At the time of SVT diagnosis, many patients had asymptomatic DVT and SVT near the deep venous system, supporting the systematic use of initial US in patients clinically diagnosed with SVT. The observed differences in 3-month complication rates, according to the treatment provided, highlight the need for large-scale randomized controlled trials to establish optimal management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".