Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34322783›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2021

An international multidisciplinary peer-driven consensus on the optimal use of hemostatic powders in surgical practice.

C Eden, O C Buonomo, J Busch, J Gilabert-Estelles, R Medrano, M Nosotti, S Renaud, I Walker, N Williams, Massimo Carlini

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Safety and Performance of Hemostatic Powders.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Exploring Adverse Events and Utilization of Topical Hemostatic Agents in Surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

C EdenDepartment of Urology, The Royal Surrey Hospital, Guildford, UK.
O C BuonomoBreast Unit, Department of Surgical Science, Policlinico Tor Vergata (PTV) University, Rome, Italy.
J BuschDepartment of Urology, Charité Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
J Gilabert-EstellesDepartment of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
R MedranoHospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
M NosottiFoundation IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
S RenaudDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Regional University Hospital, Nancy, France.
I WalkerTriducive Partners Limited, Tunbridge Wells, UK.
N WilliamsTriducive Partners Limited, Tunbridge Wells, UK.
Massimo CarliniDepartment of General Surgery, S. Eugenio Hospital, Piazzale dell'Umanesimo, 10, 00144, Rome, Italy. maxcarlini@tiscali.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bleeding is a consequence of insufficient hemostasis and excessive bleeding at a surgical site is associated with an increased risk of post-operative infection, transfusion and re-operation, in addition to increased hospital length of stay and costs. Surgeons employ a range of methods to achieve hemostasis, including topical hemostatic agents of differing composition and properties. Hemostatic powders are a sub-group of topical hemostats, which can be used in helping as adjuncts to manage troublesome bleeding in a variety of situations. As this technology is relatively new and potentially not well known by the broad surgical community, no specific guidelines or recommendations for the optimal use of hemostatic powders in surgery currently exist. A steering group throughout Europe of multidisciplinary surgeons, expert in hemostasis and hemostatics, identified from literature and from personal experience, five key topics. When to use hemostatic powder, the evidence for use, benefits of use, safety remarks and considerations in various surgical specialties. Thirty-seven statements were subsequently drawn from these five key topics. An online survey was sent to 128 high-volume surgeons working in breast surgery, gynaecological and obstetric surgery, general and emergency surgery, thoracic surgery and urological surgery in Europe to assess agreement (consensus) with these statements. Consensus was defined as high if ≥ 75% and very high if ≥ 90% of respondents agreed with a statement. A total of 79 responses were received and consensus among the surgical experts was very high in 27 (73%) statements, high in 8 (22%) statements and was not achieved in 2 (5%) statements. Based on the consensus scores, the steering group produced 16 key recommendations which they considered could improve patient outcomes by reducing post-operative bleeding and its associated complications using hemostatic powder.

Indexed as

Hemostasis, SurgicalHemostaticsBlood TransfusionHumansPowdersHemostaticsPowdersBleedingHemostasisSurgeryTopic hemostatics

Identifiers

PMID34322783
PMCPMC8317684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.