Use of intraoperative haemostatic checklists on blood management in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A major complication of cardiac surgery is bleeding which can require surgical re-exploration and the transfusion of allogeneic blood products. Re-operative procedures for bleeding have been associated with higher rates of mortality and morbidity, therefore an intervention to reduce this complication would be important. Previous investigation has demonstrated that low-cost solutions, such as the use of an intraoperative haemostatic checklist may result in the reduction of bleeding and subsequent transfusion. The goals of this scoping review aim to assess the efficacy of the use of intraoperative haemostatic checklists on blood management in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Specifically, the objective is to understand if the use of intraoperative haemostatic checklists has been associated with a reduction in bleeding and blood product utilisation in patients undergoing non-emergent cardiac surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review of literature identifying randomised control and observational trials, reporting on haemostatic checklists in cardiac surgery, will be undertaken. The proposed review will be guided by the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. A search will be conducted for published and unpublished (grey) literature. Published literature will be searched in the following electronic databases: Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Relevant grey literature will be identified through conference abstracts. Outcomes chosen are patient centred to ensure reduced bleeding and overall positive experience that reduces complications intraoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval as the data used are from available publications. Our dissemination strategy includes peer-review publication, presentation at conferences and relevant stakeholders.
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 | 0.080 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.008 |
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".