Additional file 1 of Desmopressin to reduce periprocedural bleeding and transfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Search Strategies. Rationale for ascertainment of review outcomes within 30 days of surgical or non-surgical procedure. Title and Abstract Screening Pilot Form. Deviations from previous review. Methodology applied to map risk of bias assessments. Table S1. Mapping of risk of bias assessment domains between Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 and 2.0 tools. Table S2. Characteristics of the included studies investigating hemostatic efficacy of desmopressin in surgical and non-surgical procedures.*Table S3. Individual studies that reported the baseline kidney function of participants. Figure S1. Risk of bias assessments for new studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 criteria. Figure S2. Risk of bias assessments for studies included in the previous review, mapped using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Figure S3. Risk of bias of 2 randomly selected studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Figure S4. Risk of bias of 2 randomly selected studies applying mapping of Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Figure S5. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on the number of participants needing red blood cell transfusion. Figure S6. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on total volume of blood loss. Figure S7. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with tranexamic acid on total volume of blood loss. Figure S8. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on units of red blood cells transfused. Figure S9. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with tranexamic acid on units of red blood cells transfused. Figure S10. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on any bleeding. Figure S11. Trial sequential analysis of desmopressin compared with placebo or usual care on reoperation due to bleeding. Figure S12. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care for outcome of number of participants who received a red cell transfusion amongst participants. Figure S13. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care for outcome of total volume of blood loss. Figure S14. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of units of red blood cell transfusion. Figure S15. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of any bleeding. Figure S16. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of reoperation due to bleeding. Figure S17. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of myocardial infarction. Figure S18. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of stroke. Figure S19. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of clinically important hypotension. Figure S20. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of venous thromboembolism. Figure S21. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of hyponatremia (dichotomous). Figure S22. Funnel plot of desmopressin to placebo or usual care examining the outcome of post-procedural serum sodium. Figure S23. Funnel plot of desmopressin to tranexamic acid for outcome of number of participants who received a red cell transfusion amongst participants. Figure S24. Funnel plot of desmopressin to tranexamic acid for outcome of total volume of blood loss. Figure S25. Funnel plot of desmopressin to tranexamic acid examining the outcome of units of red blood cell transfusion. Figure S26. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of reoperation due to bleeding. Figure S27. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of myocardial infarction. Figure S28. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of stroke. Figure S29. Funnel plot of desmopressin to aprotinin examining the outcome of venous thromboembolism. Summary of characteristics of 15 studies that meet eligibility criteria but were available in the form of trial registries or abstracts that did not provide relevant data.
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 | 0.005 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.750 | 0.030 |
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".