SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Optimizing blood management in burn surgery: a meta-analysis of tranexamic acid vs. placebo.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundEarly debridement and grafting improve burn outcomes but pose significant blood loss risks. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, reduces hemorrhage without increasing Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. While widely used in other surgeries, its role in burn surgery remains unclear. This meta-analysis evaluates TXA's efficacy in improving surgical outcomes in burn patients.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Springer databases (last search: February 2025). Eligible RCTs compared TXA vs. placebo in burn surgery. Primary outcomes included blood loss (ml), transfusion need, hemoglobin change (g/dL), and hematocrit change (%). We conducted sensitivity, cumulative, and meta-regression analysis for all outcomes and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for primary outcomes.
resultsWe included five studies containing 227 patients. TXA significantly reduced operative blood loss (MD: -181.52 mL; p = 0.00; moderate certainty; I² = 61.46%) and transfusion need (RR: 0.52; p = 0.01; moderate certainty; I² = 0%). However, TXA did not significantly affect changes in hemoglobin (MD: 0.06; p = 0.94; low certainty; I² = 91.29%) or hematocrit levels (MD: 0.19; p = 0.90; very low certainty; I² = 88.94%).
conclusionTXA significantly reduces total operative blood loss and transfusion needs with moderate certainty. However, it does not significantly impact hemoglobin or hematocrit levels. Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences, including operative time, hospitalization length, and infection rates.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.