Tranexamic Acid in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tranexamic acid is proposed as a treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding. The Haemorrhage Alleviation with Tranexamic Acid-Intestinal System trial evaluated extended-use (24 hr) high-dose tranexamic acid, prompting a reappraisal for tranexamic acid in gastrointestinal bleeding. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing tranexamic acid with usual care or placebo in adults with gastrointestinal bleeding. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (inception to September 2019). Data Selection: Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool in duplicate. The main outcomes were mortality, bleeding, and adverse events. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were analyzed as high-dose IV tranexamic acid versus all other dosing strategies for tranexamic acid using fixed-effects models. We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five randomized controlled trials evaluated extended-use high-dose IV tranexamic acid, seven evaluating low-dose IV or enteral tranexamic acid. Extended-use high-dose IV tranexamic acid did not reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.98%; 95% CI, 0.88–1.09; I 2 = 63%; high certainty) or bleeding (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82–1.04; p = 0.17 and absolute risk differences, –0.7%; 95% CI, –1.5 to 0.3; high certainty) but resulted in a small increase in deep venous thrombosis (relative risk, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.08–3.72; I 2 = 0%), pulmonary embolism (relative risk, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06–3.0; I 2 = 0%), and seizure (relative risk, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.03–2.93) with high certainty. Low-dose IV/enteral tranexamic acid did not reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.36–1.09; I 2 = 0%) but did reduce risk of rebleeding (relative risk, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.33–0.75; I 2 = 9%) and need for surgery (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38–0.88; I 2 = 11%), with moderate certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Extended-use high-dose IV tranexamic acid does not improve mortality or bleeding outcomes and increases adverse events. Low-dose/enteral tranexamic acid may be effective in reducing hemorrhage; more evidence is required to demonstrate its safety.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".