MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110563957 · doi:10.1111/pan.12723

Ability of hemostatic assessment to detect bleeding disorders and to predict abnormal surgical blood loss in children: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2015· review· en· W2110563957 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Guay, David Faraoni, Fanny Bonhomme, A Derlon, Dominique Lasne

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMEDLINEOdds ratioStudy heterogeneitySystematic reviewDiagnostic odds ratioConfidence intervalCoagulation testingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Systematic preoperative coagulation testing is still widely used in children scheduled for surgery, although current guidelines recommend that a bleeding history should be the first choice for hemostatic assessment. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the pertinence of bleeding questionnaire and screening laboratory testing to detect bleeding disorders (BDs) in children and to predict abnormal surgical blood loss. METHODS: A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE(R), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health technology Assessment, and all EBM Reviews (Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED and EBM Reviews) up to October 22, 2013. Prospective trials containing 20 children or more and any tests evaluating either the ability of the test to detect a congenital BD or the ability of the test to predict increased surgical blood loss were retained. The quality of the study was judged with the Cochrane Collaboration Tool and two investigators extracted data independently. Data were combined to calculate the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%). I(2) statistics were used to assess statistics heterogeneity. RESULTS: Data could be extracted from 16 studies. Best results for detecting a congenital abnormality at potential risk for increased surgical blood loss were obtained with the PFA-100 (DOR = 113.0; 95% CI, 22.6-566.2; I(2) = 0%) in two studies, followed by the bleeding time in two other studies (DOR = 110.7; 95% CI, 24.4-502.3; I(2) = 0%). With a high amount of heterogeneity, questionnaires showed disappointing performances (DOR = 7.9; 95% CI: 3.5-17.5; I(2) = 72.6%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not identify a tool that adequately predicts BDs and/or abnormal surgical blood loss in children. Questionnaires currently available do not perform well. In the setting of a pediatric coagulation clinic, the PFA-100 has the highest chance of detecting a BD. This meta-analysis highlights the weakness of the literature regarding the prediction of perioperative bleeding due to congenital hemostatic disorders in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207