The Safety of Endoscopic Procedures in Patients With Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic procedures are essential in gastroenterology but pose significant risks for thrombocytopenic patients who have lower platelet counts, increasing the likelihood of bleeding complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to assess bleeding risks in thrombocytopenic patients undergoing various endoscopic procedures. A comprehensive search was conducted across databases like PubMed, MEDLINE, and EBSCO, using stringent criteria for inclusion and exclusion, with study quality assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and thrombocytopenia severity classified by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. Statistical analysis focused on bleeding event incidence rates at different platelet count thresholds, utilizing RevMan Web (Cochrane, London, UK) and Excel (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, WA). The search yielded 1,675 potential articles, but only three retrospective cohort studies were selected. Results showed a significant increase in bleeding risk for patients with platelet counts below 50,000/mm3, particularly under 25,000/mm3, with a 5.5% prevalence of post-procedure bleeding in moderate to severe thrombocytopenic patients versus 4.0% in those with higher counts, and a threefold higher risk in severe thrombocytopenia. The study highlights the need for meticulous pre-procedure assessments in thrombocytopenic patients and points out disparities in guideline recommendations, suggesting personalized approaches based on patient-specific risks. It underscores balancing diagnostic yield against bleeding risks, especially in severe thrombocytopenia, and discusses the controversial role of prophylactic platelet transfusions, advocating for a nuanced approach. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides critical insights into managing thrombocytopenia in endoscopic procedures, emphasizing the importance of individualized patient assessment and adherence to evolving guidelines, and underlining the necessity of further research to refine these guidelines and improve patient safety and outcomes in this challenging clinical scenario.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".