MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296636069 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1563609

Systemic and Topical Use of Tranexamic Acid in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W2296636069 on OpenAlex
Sebastian Winter, Carlo Santaguida, Jean Wong, Michael G. Fehlings

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTranexamic acidSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEBlood managementPerioperativeClinical trialSpinal surgerySpinal manipulationNarrative reviewSurgeryIntensive care medicineBlood lossAlternative medicineInternal medicineChiropractic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Design Combination of narrative and systematic literature reviews. Objectives Massive perioperative blood loss in complex spinal surgery often requires blood transfusions and can negatively affect patient outcome. Systemic use of the antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid (TXA) has become widely used in the management of surgical bleeding. We review the clinical evidence for the use of intravenous TXA as a hemostatic agent in spinal surgery and discuss the emerging role for its complementary use as a topical agent to reduce perioperative blood loss from the surgical site. Through a systematic review of published and ongoing investigations on topical TXA for spinal surgery, we wish to make spine practitioners aware of this option and to suggest opportunities for further investigation in the field. Methods A narrative review of systemic TXA in spinal surgery and topical TXA in surgery was conducted. Furthermore, a systematic search (using PRISMA guidelines) of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases as well as World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov (National Institutes of Health), and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registries was conducted to identify both published literature and ongoing clinical trials on topical TXA in spinal surgery. Results Of 1,631 preliminary search results, 2 published studies were included in the systematic review. Out of 285 ongoing clinical trials matching the search criteria, a total of 4 relevant studies were included and reviewed. Conclusion Intravenous TXA is established as an efficacious hemostatic agent in spinal surgery. Use of topical TXA in surgery suggests similar hemostatic efficacy and potentially improved safety as compared with intravenous TXA. For spinal surgery, the literature on topical TXA is sparse but promising, warranting further clinical investigation and consideration as a clinical option in cases with significant anticipated surgical site blood loss.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.264 · 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