Randomized Controlled Trials for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma and Emergency General Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review of Sample Size Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Trauma and emergency general surgery patients are at an elevated risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, deviations from guideline-recommended thromboprophylaxis regimens persist. As such, improving thromboprophylaxis compliance has been deemed a high priority. However, the few trials evaluating VTE prevention regimens in these settings have important methodological limitations preventing clinical application. Thus, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the sample size methodology and justification in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining VTE prevention in the trauma and emergency general surgery setting. METHODS: We searched two databases (Medline and EMBASE) from inception to February 17, 2025, for all English-language RCTs that enrolled adult trauma or emergency general surgery patients and evaluated an intervention aimed at preventing VTE. Citation screening, data extraction, and risk of bias were performed independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: We included seven studies involving 1358 patients. Most trials were single center (71.4%), assessing trauma patients (85.7%), with a primary outcome encompassing any VTE (71.4%). Only two of the six studies (33.3%) reporting sample size targets achieved their recruitment goals. None of the included studies met their prespecified VTE incidence or absolute risk reduction estimations. Furthermore, only one (14.3%) study incorporated prognostic enrichment in their methodological approach. The majority of studies (57.1%) were terminated early, citing futility of the intervention as the most common reason. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that RCTs assessing VTE prevention in the trauma and emergency general surgery population consistently demonstrate methodological limitations resulting in unrealistic treatment effect targets and inaccurate estimates of baseline risk. Future trials in this field should consider abandoning dichotomization with statistical analysis interpretation, as well as incorporating heterogeneity of treatment effect and prognostic enrichment in the study design.
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 | 0.144 | 0.297 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.039 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".