Anticoagulant treatment for isolated distal deep vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal management of isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) is uncertain. To assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in patients with IDDVT we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and cohort studies on anticoagulation for IDDVT. Efficacy outcomes included recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), proximal progression of IDDVT, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Safety outcomes included major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Pooled incidence and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Treatment duration was defined as short (<6 weeks), long (6-12 weeks), or extended (>12 weeks). Fifty-three studies (14,580 patients) were included. The incidence of recurrent DVT and proximal progression was 16% and 11% in untreated patients, 7% and 7% in short, 6% and 3% in long, and 4% and 2% in extended anticoagulation, respectively. The incidence of PE (2%) and major bleeding (2%) was low, with similar risk across groups of treatment duration. The incidence of PTS was 30% in untreated patients, 11% in short, and 0% in long anticoagulation. The incidence of CRNMB was respectively 2%, 1%, 4%, and 8%. Patients receiving short courses of anticoagulation had higher risk of recurrent VTE (RR=2.72; 95% CI: 1.19-6.23) and proximal progression (RR=3.86; 95% CI: 1.77-8.43) than patients receiving long anticoagulation, with similar bleeding risk in patients with IDDVT, anticoagulation seemed associated with lower risk of recurrent VTE and proximal progression, and similar bleeding risk compared to no anticoagulant treatment. Long-term treatment duration appeared to be more effective.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".