Geographical Variance in the Use of Tranexamic Acid for Major Trauma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The CRASH-2 trial is the largest randomised control trial examining tranexamic acid (TXA) for injured patients. Since its publication, debate has arisen around whether results could be applied to mature trauma systems in developed nations, with global opinion divided. The aim of this study was to determine if, among trauma patients in or at significant risk of major haemorrhages, there is an association of geographic region with the proportion of patients that received tranexamic acid. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature. Potentially eligible papers were first screened via title and abstract screening. A full copy of the remaining papers was then obtained and screened for final inclusion. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomised control trials was used for quality assessment of the final studies included. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, reporting variation in use sub-grouped by geographical location. Results: There were 727 papers identified through database searching and 23 manuscripts met the criteria for final inclusion in this review. There was a statistically significant variation in the use of TXA for included patients. Europe and Oceania had higher usage rates of TXA compared to other continents. Use of TXA in Asia and Africa was significantly less than other continents and varied use was observed in North America. Conclusions: A large geographical variance in the use of TXA for trauma patients in or at significant risk of major haemorrhage currently exists. The populations in Asia and Africa, where the results of CRASH-2 could be most readily generalised to, reported low rates of use. The reason why remains unclear and further research is required to standardise the use of TXA for trauma resuscitation.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".