Treatments for Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is a common and potentially life-threatening coagulopathy as a result of traumatic injury, characterized by abnormal blood clotting and bleeding. Although several treatments have been proposed for TIC, their effectiveness and safety remain unclear. Further, numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on trauma have been conducted; however, to our knowledge, there is no systematic review and meta-analysis that specifically focuses on TIC management. Therefore, a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence on interventions for TIC is needed. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for the management of TIC. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials as well as observational studies regarding severe trauma in patients with TIC. The interventions will include administration of coagulation factor concentrates, tranexamic acid, and blood component products. The control group will be managed with an ordinal transfusion or administered placebo. The primary outcome will be in-hospital mortality. We will search the electronic databases of MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts, retrieve the full text of the selected articles, and extract essential data. We will apply uniform criteria for evaluating the risk of bias associated with individual randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized trials based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Risk ratio values will be expressed as point estimates with 95% CIs. Continuous variables will be expressed as the mean difference along with their 95% CIs and P values. We will assess the strength of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. This review will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis providing information on the effectiveness and safety of interventions for the management of TIC, including the administration of coagulation factor concentrates, tranexamic acid, and blood component products. Ethics approval and patient consent were not required for this study protocol, as we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of publicly available data, without any direct involvement of human participants. RESULTS: We will summarize the selection of the eligible studies using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart. The results will be presented in a table summarizing the evidence. The results of the meta-analysis will be depicted using figures and forest plots. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will provide updated information on the efficacy and safety of using coagulation factor concentrates, tranexamic acid, and blood component products for patients with TIC. To our knowledge, there is no systematic review and meta-analysis that specifically focuses on treatments for TIC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN registry UMIN000050170; https://tinyurl.com/yr8pcrj6. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49582.
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 | 0.057 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.006 |
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".