Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39597881›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Methodological Considerations for Studies Evaluating Bleeding Prediction Using Hemostatic Point-of-Care Tests in Cardiac Surgery.

Mirna Petricevic, Klaus Goerlinger, Milan Milojevic, Mate Petricevic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Applications of Hydrogels in Emergency Therapy.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Mirna PetricevicUniversity Department of Health Studies, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia.
Klaus GoerlingerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45127 Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7315-9528
Milan MilojevicDepartment of Cardiac Surgery and Cardiovascular Research, Dedinje Cardiovascular Institute, 101801 Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0003-0984-9011
Mate PetricevicUniversity Department of Health Studies, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A certain proportion of patients undergoing cardiac surgery may experience bleeding complications that worsen outcomes. Numerous studies have investigated bleeding in cardiac surgery and some evaluate the role of hemostatic point-of-care tests in cardiac surgery patients. The prevalence of excessive bleeding varies in the literature, and such variability stems from the lack of a standardized definition of excessive bleeding. Herein, we report numerous definitions of excessive bleeding and methodological considerations for studies evaluating bleeding using hemostatic point-of-care tests in cardiac surgery patients. We evaluated the role of hemostatic point-of-care devices in contemporary research on bleeding complications and hemostatic management in cardiac surgery. The type of studies (prospective vs. retrospective, interventional vs. observational), patient selection (less complex vs. complex cases), as well as data analysis with comprehensive statistical considerations have also been provided. This article provides a comprehensive insight into the research field of bleeding complications in cardiac surgery and may help readers to better understand methodological flaws and how they influence current evidence.

Indexed as

bleedingcardiac surgerychest tube outputtransfusion

Identifiers

PMID39597881
PMCPMC11595064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.