Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Pediatric Craniofacial and Orthognathic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Craniofacial and orthognathic surgery are high risk procedures for surgical blood loss. Significant blood loss leads to increased rates of blood product transfusion which may be associated with increased morbidity to the patient. The use of anti-fibrinolytics such as tranexamic acid has become popular in these procedures. However, the evidence to support its use in pediatric craniofacial and orthognathic surgery is sparse. This review analyzes the current randomized control trials assessing the use of tranexamic acid in craniofacial and orthognathic surgery. The study reviewed published literature up until December 20th, 2020. Six trials were included in this analysis. Pooled data showed that patients who received tranexamic acid during craniofacial or orthognathic surgery have less blood loss compared to those in control groups (mean difference—5.47 ml/kg [CI -7.02-3.82], P value <.05). Hence, rate of blood product transfusion in patients who received tranexamic acid is lower than control group by 2.01 ml/kg (CI 95%, 1.27-2.74, P value <.05). In summary, this review showed that craniofacial and orthognathic surgery patients who receive tranexamic acid might have lower estimated blood loss and receive less volume of blood products transfusion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".