Additional file 1 of Desmopressin to reduce periprocedural bleeding and transfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Additional file 1: Search Strategies. Rationale for ascertainment of review outcomes within 30 days of surgical or non-surgical procedure. Title and Abstract Screening Pilot Form. Deviations from previous review. Methodology applied to map risk of bias assessments. Table S1. Mapping of risk of bias assessment domains between Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 and 2.0 tools. Table S2. Characteristics of the included studies investigating hemostatic efficacy of desmopressin in surgical and non-surgical procedures.*Table S3. Individual studies that reported the baseline kidney function of participants. Figure S1. Risk of bias assessments for new studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 criteria. Figure S2. Risk of bias assessments for studies included in the previous review, mapped using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Figure S3. Risk of bias of 2 randomly selected studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Figure S4. Risk of bias of 2 randomly selected studies applying mapping of Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Figure S5. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on the number of participants needing red blood cell transfusion. Figure S6. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on total volume of blood loss. Figure S7. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with tranexamic acid on total volume of blood loss. Figure S8. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on units of red blood cells transfused. Figure S9. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with tranexamic acid on units of red blood cells transfused. Figure S10. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on any bleeding. Figure S11. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on reoperation due to bleeding. Figure S12. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care for outcome of number of participants who received a red cell transfusion amongst participants. Figure S13. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care for outcome of total volume of blood loss. Figure S14. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of units of red blood cell transfusion. Figure S15. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of any bleeding. Figure S16. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of reoperation due to bleeding. Figure S17. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of myocardial infarction. Figure S18. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of stroke. Figure S19. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of clinically important hypotension. Figure S20. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of venous thromboembolism. Figure S21. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of hyponatremia (dichotomous). Figure S22. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of post-procedural serum sodium. Figure S23. Funnel plot of desmopressin to tranexamic acid for outcome of number of participants who received a red cell transfusion amongst participants. Figure S24. Funnel plot of desmopressin to tranexamic acid for outcome of total volume of blood loss. Figure S25. Funnel plot of desmopressin to tranexamic acid examining the outcome of units of red blood cell transfusion. Figure S26. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of reoperation due to bleeding. Figure S27. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of myocardial infarction. Figure S28. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of stroke. Figure S29. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of venous thromboembolism. Summary of characteristics of 15 studies that meet eligibility criteria but were available in the form of trial registries or abstracts that did not provide relevant data.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,053 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,750 | 0,030 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».