MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889965442 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000011573

Is the combined application of both drain-clamping and tranexamic acid superior to the single use of either application in patients with total-knee arthroplasty?

2018· review· en· W2889965442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanhong Han, Hetao Huang, Jianke Pan, Lingfeng Zeng, Hao-Dong Liang, Weiyi Yang, Da Guo, Jun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine
KeywordsMedicineTranexamic acidWOMACCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialBlood transfusionSurgeryMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastyBlood lossAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of the combined application of both drain-clamping and tranexamic acid (TXA) versus the single use of either application in patients with total-knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, the Google database, and the Ovid database) were searched from their inception through April 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined application of both drain-clamping and TXA versus single use of either application in patients with TKA. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool was used to assess the methodologic quality. The primary outcomes were blood loss in drainage, total blood loss, transfusion rate, and hemoglobin decline. The secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, the Knee Society Score (KSS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.5 software. RESULTS: A total of five RCTs (479 participants) were included in our meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis indicated that significant differences existed in the total blood loss (mean difference [MD] = -145.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -228.64 to -63.08, P = .0006), blood loss in drainage (MD = -169.06, 95% CI: -248.56 to -89.57, P < .0001), hemoglobin decline (MD = -0.66, 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.33, P = .0001), and transfusion rate (MD = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.75, P = .002) between the groups. However, regarding postoperative complications, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the KSS and the WOMAC score (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Combined application of both drain-clamping and TXA was associated with significant reductions in blood loss in drainage, total blood loss, hemoglobin decline, and the need for transfusion. However, high-quality, well-designed RCTs with long-term follow-up are still required.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.018
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207