SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Comparing the efficacy and safety of oral versus intravenous tranexamic acid in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tranexamic Acid in Lower Extremity Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Oncologic Indications: A Retrospective Comparative Study of 617 Patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical application of different administration methods of tranexamic acid in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spine surgery is associated with significant blood loss, increasing the risk of complications, transfusions, delayed recovery, and longer hospital stays. Tranexamic Acid (TXA) is widely used to reduce bleeding, but it remains unclear whether oral or intravenous TXA is more effective in spine surgery. We conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and intravenous TXA in spine surgery. The primary outcomes are perioperative blood loss, transfusion rates, and postoperative complications. Data are extract independently by two reviewers and analyzed using Review Manager 5.4, with results expressed as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR). Four RCTs are included. Both oral and intravenous TXA show similar effects in reducing intraoperative blood loss, total blood loss, Hct, Hgb and transfusion rates. Oral TXA is superior in reduce postoperative drainage volume (MD = -16.36, P = 0.004). No significant differences are observed in DVT, infection rates, or hospital stay. Both oral and intravenous TXA are effective in reducing blood loss and transfusion needs, with similar safety profiles. While oral TXA showed statistically significant reduction in postoperative drainage, this difference may have limited clinical significance. Given its comparable effectiveness, potentially lower cost, and easier administration, oral TXA represents a viable alternative to intravenous TXA in spine surgery. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal TXA administration route for spine surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40448910What 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.