Effect of tranexamic acid use on blood loss and thromboembolic risk in hip fracture surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intravenous tranexamic acid (IV TXA) is a recognised pharmaceutical intervention utilised to minimise blood loss and allogenic blood transfusion. However, the use of IV TXA in hip fracture surgery remains inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the role of TXA in operative hip fracture management on operative and total blood loss, allogenic blood transfusion requirements and impact on venous thromboembolic (VTE) event incidence. METHODS: A systematic computerised literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Ovid, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Trip and Google was conducted. We reviewed the efficacy of IV TXA on perioperative blood loss, total blood loss, pre- and postoperative haemoglobin differences, duration of surgery, allogenic blood transfusion requirements and VTE events. RESULTS: 8 studies were eligible including 6 randomised control trials and 2 cohort studies. Patients receiving IV TXA had reduced mean total blood loss of 442.9 mls (95% CI, 426.5-459.3; p<0.00001), reduced operative blood loss of 88.5 mls (95% CI, 59.9-117.2; p<0.00001), a decrease in the need for allogenic blood transfusion (OR 0.37; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; p<0.00001) and a reduction in pre- and postoperative haemoglobin difference (p = 0.013.) There was no significant increase in VTE risk (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.67-3.75; p>0.29) or significant difference on duration of surgery seen with IV TXA usage (p>0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated the efficacy of IV TXA in minimising perioperative, reducing total blood loss and lowering the necessity for allogenic blood transfusions with no significant increased risk in VTE events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".