Use of fibrinogen concentrate for trauma-related bleeding: A systematic-review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trauma-induced coagulopathy contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in patients who experience trauma-related bleeding. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of preemptive and goal-directed fibrinogen concentrate (FC) in the management of trauma-related hemorrhage. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were systematically searched. All trial designs, except individual case reports, which evaluated the preemptive or goal-directed use of FC for trauma-related bleeding/coagulopathy, in patients older than 16 years, were included in the systematic review. For the included randomized controlled trials comparing FC with control, meta-analysis was performed and a risk-of bias-assessment was completed using the Cochrane Methodology and Preferred Reporting Items Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 2,743 studies were identified; 26 were included in the systematic review, and 5 randomized controlled trials (n = 238) were included in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcome of mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, with 22% and 23.4% in the FC and comparator arms, respectively (risk ratio, 1.00 [95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 2.56]; p = 0.99). In addition, there was no statistical difference between FC and control in packed red blood cell, fresh frozen plasma, or platelet transfusion requirements, and thromboembolic events. Overall, the quality of evidence was graded as low to moderate because of concerns with risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. CONCLUSION: Further high-quality, adequately powered studies are needed to assess the impact of FC in trauma, with a focus on administration as early as possible from the point of entry into the trauma system of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and Meta-analysis, level II.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".