The Utility and Safety of Prophylactic Tranexamic Acid in Tonsillectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) in reducing posttonsillectomy hemorrhage (PTH). DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for RCT comparing prophylactic TXA to control in patients undergoing tonsillectomy. REVIEW METHODS: Per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines, the databases were searched from date of inception through October 2023. RCTs of patients undergoing tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy and receiving prophylactic TXA versus control were included. Two reviewers screened citations, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and classification of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation independently. Standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was applied for continuous variables. Dichotomous data were expressed as relative risk with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 10 RCT were included in our quantitative analysis. Eight studies reported on PTH rate. Prophylactic TXA showed non-significant decrease in PTH (relative risk or risk ratio [RR]: 0.62 [0.35, 1.10]). Sensitivity analysis showed significant decrease in PTH after exclusion of High-risk bias studies (RR: 0.48 [0.30, 0.77]). Intraoperative blood loss volume was significantly lower in the TXA group (35.59 mL [-48.19, -22.99]). CONCLUSION: Overall, this study showed a tendency toward lesser PTH rate with prophylactic TXA. However, this tendency only reaches statistical significance when studies with high risk of bias are excluded. Well-designed trials are still needed to support our observations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".