MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417485921 · doi:10.1177/0310057x251397167

Randomised controlled trials for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: A systematic review of sample size methodologies

2025· review· en· W4417485921 on OpenAlexaff
Talia Mia Bitonti, Kevin Durr, Shannon M. Fernando, Bram Rochwerg, Marc Carrier, Deborah Siegal, Alexandre Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia and Intensive Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsLakeridge HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalKingston General HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationRandomized controlled trialVenous thromboembolismCritically illMEDLINEIntensive careDosingIntensive care unitClinical trialMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. This increased incidence is influenced by factors such as indwelling central venous catheters, continuous sedation, and vasoactive infusions, in addition to traditional VTE risk factors such as immobility. Optimal VTE prophylaxis remains uncertain owing to significant variability with regard to differences across existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of patient populations, types and dosing of prophylactic interventions, and definitions of VTE outcomes. RCTs conducted on critically ill patients are often limited by over-optimistic estimates of baseline event rates and potential treatment benefit. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the described sample size methodologies and justification amongst VTE-prevention RCTs for critically ill patients. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception until 9 September 2024, and included 12 RCTs enrolling 9154 patients. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 3746 participants. Only six studies met their recruitment targets, while four did not report a sample size calculation. Among the seven studies that reported an estimated control event rate, only one met that estimate. No studies achieved their planned absolute risk reduction, and only one met its relative risk reduction target. Prognostic enrichment strategies were employed in 41.6% of trials, while predictive enrichment was rarely used. These findings suggest that intensive care unit VTE prophylaxis trials frequently overestimate baseline risk and treatment effect size, contributing to underpowered studies and potential premature abandonment of promising interventions. Future trials should incorporate enrichment strategies and justify assumptions based on clinical relevance and patient-centred outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.261
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.261
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.014
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesia and Intensive CareSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207