ArticleHeliyon2023
Development of a bleeding scale and hemostasis algorithm in cranial neurosurgery.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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.
- The PEG-coated collagen patch Hemopatch® for hemostasis and dural sealing in neurosurgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective hemostasis is crucial in neurosurgery as anatomical and functional considerations reduce tolerance for any bleeding. The classification of bleeding severities is a necessary step to enable neurosurgeons to counteract bleeding during surgery. Even though bleeding scales are used for a variety of surgical specialties, they cannot be transferred to cranial neurosurgery without adaption, and no consensus on the nature of such a classification exists to date. Moreover, there is plethora of topical hemostasis products with diverse mechanisms of action and application available. Clinical studies investigating those products used in neurosurgery did not define standardized procedures. This article demonstrates the systematic establishment of both a bleeding scale and a hemostasis algorithm to close this gap in the assessment of intracranial bleeding. The expert panel consisting of 7 members from different neurosurgical centers developed a qualitative bleeding scale with the peculiarities of neurosurgical procedures, based on the experience of each member in daily practice. The hemostasis algorithm is a recommendation for neurosurgeons to aid in the decision-making process to control any sort of bleeding, taking into account the rational use of available hemostatics, depending on type and location of bleeding, as well as the mechanism of action of such agents. Effectiveness of hemostasis, surgery times and economic costs can be optimized by applying the algorithm in daily practice.
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.