Identifying pulmonary embolism - high risk patients after total knee replacement: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, onset, risk factors and mortality of pulmonary embolism in total knee replacement patients. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted in September 2022, and comprised search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Crossref databases for studies published from 1977 till September 7, 2022, in the English language related to the incidence of pulmonary embolism after primary total knee replacement. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess risk of bias, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Of the 3,910 studies initially identified, 66(1.68%) were analysed in detail, which together had 13,258,455 total knee replacement patients. Pulmonary embolism was reported in 76,515(0.58%) cases. The onset of pulmonary embolism ranged 2-150 days post-surgery. Patients with older age, diabetes mellitus, higher body mass index, atrial fibrillation, previous venous thromboembolism, high Charlson Comorbidity Index score, hypertension, arrhythmia and chronic heart failure were at significantly higher risk (p<0.05). The overall mortality rate of pulmonary embolism in such cases ranged 10.53-100%. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary embolism is a rare complication after orthopaedic surgery, but it has a very high mortality rate. By recognising the risk factors, attending physicians can optimise the use of chemoprophylaxis, thus preventing pulmonary embolism.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".