Trends and Challenges in Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Bariatric Surgery: A 20-Year Bibliometric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Although this bariatric and metabolic surgery is an effective treatment for obesity, it carries inherent risks, such as thromboembolic complications, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE). Therefore, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric review of the existing literature on anticoagulation in bariatric surgery, with a particular focus on prophylactic anticoagulation. Methodology:A cross-sectional bibliometric study was carried out using the Scopus database. A structured search strategy was designed to identify articles related to anticoagulation in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Results:A total of 155 articles published between 2004 and 2024. Of these, 67.74% were original articles and 23.23% were reviews. The countries with the highest number of publications were the United States (n = 62), Canada (n = 13), France (n = 13), and Italy (n = 13). Discussion:There was a significant increase in research production since 2004, with peaks between 2006–2009 and 2021–2022. Despite the increase in the number of publications, citation rates have decreased. The study highlighted the significant contributions of the United States and Europe but also showed a lack of global consensus and standardization in protocols. Conclusions:This bibliometric study highlights the growing interest in anticoagulation for bariatric surgery but also reveals a lack of consensus and standardization in protocols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".