MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390015923 · doi:10.1177/10760296231218215

Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Topical Intrapleural Application of Tranexamic Acid in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2023· review· en· W4390015923 on OpenAlexaff
Amer Alzahrani, Hadeel Alkofide, Hala Joharji, Ghazwa B. Korayem, Sarah Aljohani, Hanan Alshareef, Mashael AlFaifi, Hassan Alalawi, Khalid Al Sulaiman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTranexamic acidRandomized controlled trialPlaceboAdverse effectMeta-analysisAnesthesiaSurgeryBlood transfusionBlood lossInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Bleeding remains a common complication post-thoracic surgery. Although intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to decrease blood loss, its use has been associated with adverse effects. Accordingly, topical TXA has been proposed as an alternative to reduce bleeding with fewer systemic complications. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical TXA versus control (i.e., placebo) in patients undergoing thoracic procedures. The primary outcome was total postoperative blood loss at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included were the number of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Meta-analyses were pooled using mean difference with inverse-variance weighting and random-effects. Results Out of the 575 unique studies that were screened, we identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 399 patients. Out of the three RCTs analyzed, two studies, accounting for 67% of the total, were found to have a low risk of bias. The primary outcome of 24-h post-operative blood loss was significantly lower in patients who received TXA (mean difference [MD] −93.6 ml, 95% CI −121.8 to −65.4 ml, I 2 = 45%). In addition, the need for RBC transfusion was significantly lower in the topical TXA group compared to control (MD −0.5 units, 95% CI −0.8 to −0.3 units, I 2 = 60%). However, there was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD −0.3 days, 95% CI −0.9 to 0.4 days, I 2 = 0%). These results remained consistent after several sensitivity analyses. The use of topical intrapleural tranexamic acid has also been found to be safe without any significant safety concerns. Conclusion Topical intrapleural TXA reduces blood loss and the need for blood transfusions during thoracic surgery. In addition, there is no evidence of the increased safety concerns associated with its use. Larger trials are necessary to validate these findings and evaluate the safety and efficacy of different dosages.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.043
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207