ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Application value of thromboelastography in perioperative clinical blood transfusion and its effect on the outcome of patient.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Application value of thromboelastography (TEG) in perioperative clinical blood transfusion and its effect on the outcome of patient were investigated. Seventy-four patients, admitted to The Surgical Department of the First Hospital of Zibo from March 2015 to March 2018, were selected for this study. Among them, 34 patients took only the traditional coagulation function testing method as the blood transfusion guide during the perioperative period and they were regarded as the control group. The other 40 patients used TEG as the blood transfusion guide during the perioperative period, and they were regarded as the TEG group. The coagulation function indicators in 2 h before the operation and in 24 h after the operation, the transfusion amount and blood loss during the operation, the condition of the blood transfusion during the perioperative period, the occurrence rate of the postoperative rebleeding, the length of hospital stay and mortality of the patients in the two groups were compared. The coagulation function indicators of the patients in the two groups in 2 h before the operation and in 24 h after the operation showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.050). However, APTT and Pt of the patients in the two groups both increased when compared with those before the treatment (P<0.050) and Hb, Hct, Plt and Fib all decreased (P<0.050). The suspended erythrocytes, Plt, fibrinogen and plasma in the TEG group were both significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.001). Compared with the traditional coagulation function test, TEG was more accurate for estimating the coagulation function of patient and was more suitable for estimating the condition of blood transfusion of patient in the perioperative period; also, it could shorten the recovery period of patient and it is worthwhile to promote it in the clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.