ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Comparison of 2 thromboelastography methods using patient and control samples.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Viscoelastic testing at point-of-care is associated with reduced blood loss and blood product transfusions. The ROTEM (Werfen) sigma is a cartridge-based system that may facilitate point-of-care use, but limited studies exist comparing the sigma with the predicated ROTEM delta. Objectives: We compared the performance of the ROTEM delta with that of the sigma. Methods: Citrated blood was collected from 20 healthy donors and patients during liver transplants ( Results: The coefficient of variation was <10% for all assays/parameters except for the thromboelastometry with extrinsic activation (EXTEM) clotting time (10.3%) and EXTEM amplitude (A)5 (10.2%). Reference intervals for the delta and sigma were comparable to manufacturer claims. The Pearson r comparing the delta and sigma exceeded .85 for all parameters/assays except for thromboelastometry with cytochalasin D-mediated platelet inhibition (FIBTEM) A10 (.77; 95% CI, .66-.86), FIBTEM A20 (.78; 95% CI, .65-.87), and thromboelastometry with heparinase clotting time (.77; 95% CI, .61-.87). No difference was observed in extrapolated thresholds from the delta-guided algorithm. However, extrapolated sigma A5 parameters for EXTEM were 5 mm lower, and for FIBTEM were 1 mm lower than delta A10 parameters. Conclusion: The ROTEM delta and sigma devices had comparable performance. A negative bias was observed in the FIBTEM assay with lower extrapolated clinical decision points for a delta-guided treatment algorithm for the FIBTEM and EXTEM A5.
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.