ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2025
[Point of care coagulation diagnostics-Absolutely necessary or only a reasonable supplement?]
Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of pneumatic tube systems on next-generation viscoelastic coagulation test devices in septic patients and healthy individuals: Results of the randomized controlled VETaPT trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- [Regional anesthesia under anticoagulation : Comparison of guidelines and recommendations for action].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Viscoelastic point-of-care testing for monitoring unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study comparing ClotPro® IN/HI-Test, aPTT and Anti-Xa activity.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Individualized anticoagulation monitoring in critically ill patients: study protocol for a prospective observational comparison of Anti-Xa, viscoelastic testing, and thrombin generation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- [Viscoelastic tests-Helpful and meaningful investment].Die Anaesthesiologie · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Point of care (POC) coagulation diagnostics have become an integral part of clinical patient care. In particular, the strengths of POC viscoelastometry (VET) lie not only in the rapid availability of test results but also in the fact that VET provides insights into coagulation that cannot be detected by standard laboratory tests. The relevance of POC-VET in the optimal management of patients with acutely acquired bleeding disorders, such as trauma-induced coagulopathy, is now unquestioned and is also reflected in the corresponding guidelines; however, VET also provides important information about fibrinolysis and fibrinolytic activity and in combination with other laboratory values can possibly also be sensitive for prothrombotic coagulation disorders. Therefore, POC-VET is increasingly being used in intensive care medicine. The use of POC diagnostics is not subject to the same standards as central laboratory testing. In order to maintain high quality and avoid harming patients, the requirements for medical device manufacturers in particular have been increased as part of the in vitro diagnostic reagents (IVDR) regulations, which places high demands on quality management in particular. The variety of POC devices and the lack of comparability between them remains an unsolved problem. It should be critically discussed to what extent medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies could be legally required to keep unique and urgently needed technologies on the market, especially if no comparable alternatives will be available in the foreseeable future. Overall, from today's perspective, the use of POC coagulation diagnostics is essential for optimal patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40172631What 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.