MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119125490 · doi:10.1186/1749-7922-7-s1-s3

TEG® and ROTEM® in trauma: similar test but different results?

2012· article· en· W2119125490 on OpenAlexaff
Ajith Kumar Sankarankutty, Bartolomeu Nascimento, Luís Teodoro da Luz, Sandro Rizoli

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Emergency Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThromboelastometryThromboelastographyMedicineComparabilityThrombelastographyCoagulopathyIntensive care medicineMedical physicsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Transfusion in trauma is often empiric or based on traditional lab tests. Viscoelastic tests such as thromboelastography (TEG®) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) have been proposed as superior to traditional lab tests. Due to the similarities between the two tests, general opinion seems to consider them equivalent with interchangeable interpretations. However, it is not clear whether the results can be similarly interpreted. This review evaluates the comparability between TEG and ROTEM and performs a descriptive review of the parameters utilized in each test in adult trauma patients. METHODS: PUBMED database was reviewed using the keywords "thromboelastography" and "compare", between 2000 and 2011. Original studies directly comparing TEG® with ROTEM® in any area were retrieved. To verify the individual test parameter used in studies involving trauma patients, we further performed a review using the keywords "thromboelastography" and "trauma" in the PUBMED database. RESULTS: Only 4 studies directly compared TEG® with ROTEM®. One in liver transplantation found that transfusion practice could differ depending on the device in use. Another in cardiac surgery concluded that all measurements are not completely interchangeable. The third article using commercially available plasma detected clinically significant differences in the results from the two devices. The fourth one was a head-to-head comparison of the technical aspects. The 24 articles reporting the use of viscoelastic tests in trauma patients, presented considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Both tests are potentially useful as means to rapidly diagnose coagulopathy, guide transfusion and determine outcome in trauma patients. Differences in the activators utilized in each device limit the direct comparability. Standardization and robust clinical trials comparing the two technologies are needed before these tests can be widely recommended for clinical use in trauma.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations121
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Emergency SurgerySame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207