MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411684254 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31829a6ecb

The Use of Higher Platelet

2013· review· en· W2411684254 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Hallet, François Lauzier, Olivier Mailloux, Vincent Trottier, Patrick Archambault, Ryan Zarychanski, Alexis F. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusUniversité LavalUniversity of ManitobaThe Quebec Population Health Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyConfoundingPropensity score matchingRandomized controlled trialCoagulopathyInternal medicineRelative riskData extractionResuscitationMEDLINEEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: With the recognition of early coagulopathy, trauma resuscitation has shifted toward liberal platelet transfusions. The overall benefit of this strategy remains controversial. Our objective was to compare the effects of a liberal use of platelet (higher platelet:RBC ratios) with a conservative approach (lower ratios) in trauma resuscitation. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Biosis, Cochrane Central, and Scopus. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing two or more platelet:RBC ratios in trauma resuscitation. We excluded studies investigating the use of whole blood or hemostatic products. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were early (in ICU or within 30 d) and late (in hospital or after 30 d) mortality. Secondary outcomes were multiple organ failure, lung injury, and sepsis. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 6,123 citations, no randomized controlled trials were identified. We included seven observational studies (4,230 patients) addressing confounders through multivariable regression or propensity scores. Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Among the five studies including exclusively patients requiring massive transfusions, four observed a lower mortality with higher ratios. Two studies considering nonmassively bleeding patients observed no benefit of using higher ratios. Two studies evaluated the implementation of a massive transfusion protocol; only one study observed a decrease in mortality with higher ratios. Of the two studies at low risk of survival bias, one study observed a survival benefit. Three studies assessed secondary outcomes. One study observed an increase in multiple organ failure with higher ratios, whereas no study demonstrated an increased risk in lung injury or sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to strongly support the use of a precise platelet:RBC ratio for trauma resuscitation, especially in nonmassively bleeding patients. Randomized controlled trials evaluating both the safety and efficacy of liberal platelet transfusions are warranted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations69
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207