Prehospital tranexamic acid decreases early mortality in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background As an anti-fibrinolytic agent, tranexamic acid (TXA) is widely recognized for its efficacy in managing hemorrhagic conditions. Prehospital application of TXA has been reported in recent years, but its benefits in trauma patients remain debated. Materials and methods A literature search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register for Clinical Trials from inception to October 2024, focusing on studies related to prehospital TXA and clinical outcomes in trauma patients. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool was applied to assess the quality of randomized control trials (RCTs), while the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for observational cohort studies. Data were pooled under a random- or fixed-effects model using RevMan 5.4 with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect measures. Results A total of 286 publications were identified from the initial database search, and 12 studies, including five RCTs and seven observational cohort studies with a total of 12,682 patients, were included. Significant early survival benefits were observed in patients receiving prehospital TXA compared to those not receiving prehospital treatment. Compared to the control group, the prehospital TXA group exhibited a significant reduction in 24-h mortality with an OR of 0.72 and a 95% CI of 0.54–0.94 (p = 0.02), while no statistically significant difference in the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE; OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.98–1.33, p = 0.09). No significant differences were observed in other outcomes, such as 28–30-day mortality, overall mortality, length of hospital stay, and the incidence of multiple organ failure (all p > 0.05). Conclusion Prehospital TXA decreases early (24-h) mortality in trauma patients without a significant increase in the risk of VTE and other complications, and further studies are still needed to improve and optimize its management strategy. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , Identifier: CRD 42019132189.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".