MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287377281 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000003038

Prehospital Tranexamic Acid in Major Pediatric Trauma Within a Physician-Led Emergency Medical Services System: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

2022· article· en· W4287377281 on OpenAlexaff
Amaury Gossiome, Clément Claustre, Laurie Fraticelli, Landry Jacquet, Jean‐Christophe Bouchut, Étienne Javouhey, Sonia Courtil‐Teyssedre, Xavier-Jean Taverna, Jean David, Éric Mercier, Karim Tazarourte, Carlos El Khoury, Axel Benhamed

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTranexamic acidInterquartile rangeOdds ratioRetrospective cohort studyInjury Severity ScoreEmergency medicineEmergency medical servicesEmergency departmentPopulationPoison controlPediatricsInternal medicineInjury preventionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Describe prehospital tranexamic acid (TXA) use and appropriateness within a major trauma pediatric population, and identify the factors associated with its use. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective study, 2014-2020. SETTING: Data were extracted from a multicenter French trauma registry including nine trauma centers within a physician-led prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) system. PATIENTS: Patients less than 18 years old were included. Those who did not receive prehospital intervention by a mobile medical team and those with missing data on TXA administration were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nine-hundred thirty-four patients (median [interquartile range] age: 14 yr [9-16 yr]) were included, and 68.6% n = 639) were male. Most patients were involved in a road collision (70.2%, n = 656) and suffered a blunt trauma (96.5%; n = 900). Patients receiving TXA (36.6%; n = 342) were older (15 [13-17] vs 12 yr [6-16 yr]) compared with those who did not. Patient severity was higher in the TXA group (Injury Severity Score 14 [9-25] vs 6 [2-13]; p < 0.001). The median dosage was 16 mg/kg (13-19 mg/kg). TXA administration was found in 51.8% cases ( n = 256) among patients with criteria for appropriate use. Conversely, 32.4% of patients ( n = 11) with an isolated severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) also received TXA. Age (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2), A and B prehospital severity grade (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 4.1-12.3 and OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.9-6.9 respectively), and year of inclusion (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3) were associated with prehospital TXA administration. CONCLUSIONS: In our physician-led prehospital EMS system, TXA is used in a third of severely injured children despite the lack of high-level of evidence. Only half of the population with greater than or equal to one criteria for appropriate TXA use received it. Conversely, TXA was administered in a third of isolated severe TBI. Further research is warranted to clarify TXA indications and to evaluate its impact on mortality and its safety profile to oversee its prescription.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207