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?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".