ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid in oncologic surgery for spinal metastases: A systematic review.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative considerations for patients with multiple myeloma.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026Review
- Development of ready-to-use tranexamic acid gauze as a hemostatic material for oral surgery: fabrication, hemostasis, and shelf-life.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Safety in Spine Surgery: Risk Factors for Intraoperative Blood Loss and Management Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Background: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has shown efficacy in reducing blood loss in various surgical specialties without increasing thromboembolic risks, but its role in metastatic spinal tumor surgery (MSTS) remains unclear. This systematic review synthesized evidence on the safety and efficacy of TXA in MSTS. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Epistemonikos were searched from inception to February 1, 2025 for studies reporting on TXA use in MSTS. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool for non-randomized studies and the the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) for randomized controlled trial (RCT). The impact of TXA on perioperative complications, blood loss, transfusion requirements, and operating time were evaluated. Meta-analysis feasibility was explored based on methodological and patient population uniformity. Results: Out of a total of nine studies, 6 studies reporting on 566 patients (mean age 59 years; 45% female) met the inclusion criteria. The 5 nonrandomized studies exhibited moderate methodological quality on MINORS analysis, while the RCT demonstrated low risk of bias on RoB2 analysis. A meta-analysis was precluded due to high participant and protocol heterogeneity. TXA was not associated with increased perioperative complications, including thromboembolic events. Blood loss impact varied, with 2 studies reporting contrasting results and others finding no significant effect. Transfusion requirements showed inconsistent results across studies. TXA consistently showed no impact on operative time. Conclusion: There is limited evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of TXA in metastatic spine tumor surgery. The best available evidence suggests that the complication rate is not higher in cases involving TXA use. The benefit in decreasing blood loss was variable. High-quality research is imperative to clarify the role of TXA in this complex patient population, as well as for the establishment of refined treatment protocols.
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.