Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30657628›Full record

ArticleJournal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH2019

Method agreement analysis and interobserver reliability of the ISTH proposed definitions for effective hemostasis in management of major bleeding.

Rahat A Abdoellakhan, Jan Beyer-Westendorf, Sam Schulman, Ravi Sarode, Karina Meijer, Nakisa Khorsand

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Rahat A AbdoellakhanDepartment of Hematology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5556-8099
Jan Beyer-WestendorfThrombosis Research Unit, Department of Medicine I, Division Hematology, University Hospital "Carl Gustav Carus" Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Sam SchulmanDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Ravi SarodeDivision of Transfusion Medicine and Hemostasis, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Karina MeijerDepartment of Hematology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Nakisa KhorsandDepartment of Pharmacy, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLKing's College London · GBMcMaster University · CAOLVG · NLThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Essentials In 2016 the SSC proposed definitions for effective hemostasis in management of major bleeding. To validate these definitions, we studied the use in three large anticoagulant-reversal studies. Method agreement analysis and interobserver reliability showed at least acceptable agreement. Recommendations were made, advising use of the definition in hemostatic effectiveness studies. SUMMARY: Introduction In 2016 the Scientific and Standardization Subcommittee (SSC) on Control of Anticoagulation of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) proposed criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of anticoagulant reversal in major bleeding management. Testing and validation of these criteria are required. Objective To investigate the method agreement, interobserver reliability and applicability of the ISTH proposed definitions for hemostatic effectiveness. Methods Patient data from three anticoagulant-antidote studies were used for hemostatic effectiveness assessment using the ISTH-proposed definitions and clinical opinion. For every patient a case document was produced. For each cohort, four adjudicators were asked to assess the hemostatic effectiveness independently on a case-by-case basis. Agreement between the two methods of hemostatic effectiveness assessment was calculated using Cohen's kappa (κ), with a calculated sample size of at least 73 cases. Results The full dataset consisted of 116 cases, resulting in 464 assessments. Method agreement in outcome was observed in 364 of 464 assessments (78.5%), resulting in κ of 0.634 (95% CI: 0.575-0.694), or "substantial agreement." Interobserver reliability analysis of the proposed definitions computed an overall agreement of 54.2% with κ of 0.312 ("fair agreement"). Discussion Method agreement analysis shows that the conclusions drawn using the ISTH definitions have "substantial agreement" with clinical opinion. Interobserver reliability analysis demonstrated acceptable agreement. In-depth analysis provided minor opportunities for further improvement and correct application of the definition. The definition is recommended to be used in all future studies evaluating hemostatic effectiveness, taking the suggested recommendations into account.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicTerminology as TopicAnticoagulantsAntidotesBlood Coagulation FactorsConsensusHemorrhageHemostasisHemostaticsHumansObserver VariationTreatment OutcomeAnticoagulantsAntidotesBlood Coagulation FactorsHemostaticsprothrombin complex concentratesanticoagulantsbleedinghemostasisoutcome assessmentprothrombin complex concentrates

Identifiers

PMID30657628
PMCPMC6850271
OpenAlexW2909358607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.