Examining postpartum anticoagulation practices: An international survey of healthcare providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is 15 to 35-fold higher in the postpartum period compared to non-pregnant individuals. Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of postpartum thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for 6 weeks in individuals at high risk of developing VTE. However, a marked reduction in the risk of VTE risk occurs beyond the third week of the postpartum period. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize practice patterns of clinicians who manage postpartum individuals at high risk of VTE. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a self-administered electronic questionnaire. The survey explored the use of postpartum thromboprophylaxis in high-risk individuals. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses. RESULTS: Of the 113 participants that responded to the initial invitation, 78 completed the survey (Europe (53.9 %); North America (23.2 %); Australia and New Zealand (19.0 %)). For individuals with a prior unprovoked or provoked deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, cerebral vein thrombosis and splanchnic vein thrombosis, 97.4 %, 93.5 %, 91.0 % and 88.5 % of the respondents recommended six weeks of postpartum thromboprophylaxis using LMWH, respectively. The recommendation for 6 weeks of thromboprophylaxis in patients with sickle cell disease and obstetric APS was comparatively lower (70.5 and 78.2 % respectively). Respondents with higher practice volumes and more years of experience in clinical practice were more likely to recommend a shorter duration of thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the variability in clinician recommendations and the acceptability of treatment durations for postpartum thromboprophylaxis in high-risk conditions. Prospective studies are needed to determine optimal duration and establish evidence-based 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".