Principles for management of hip fracture for older adults taking direct oral anticoagulants: an international consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Hip fracture is a common serious injury among older adults, yet the management of hip fractures for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants remains inconsistent worldwide. Drawing from a synthesis of available evidence and expert opinion, best practice approaches for managing patients with a hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants pre‐operatively were considered by a working group of the Fragility Fracture Network Hip Fracture Audit Special Interest Group. The literature and related clinical guidelines were reviewed and a two‐round modified Delphi study was conducted with a panel of experts from 16 countries and involved seven clinical specialities. Four consensus statements were achieved: peripheral nerve blocks can reasonably be performed on presentation for patients with hip fracture who are receiving direct oral anticoagulants; hip fracture surgery can reasonably be performed for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose; general anaesthesia could reasonably be administered for patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose (assuming eGFR > 60 ml.min ‐1 .1.73 m ‐2 ); and it is generally reasonable to consider recommencing direct oral anticoagulants (considering blood loss and haemoglobin) < 48 h after hip fracture surgery. No consensus was achieved regarding timing of spinal anaesthesia. The consensus statements were developed to aid clinicians in their decision‐making and to reduce practice variations in the management of patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants. Each statement will need to be considered specific to each individual patient's treatment.
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 | 0.081 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".