ArticleTransfusion2025
Adherence to local rotational thromboelastometry recommendations in the care of trauma patients: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Transfusion, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) is a blood test that measures hemostatic parameters to guide hemostatic therapy. ROTEM outputs can be cognitively challenging to interpret, which may limit adherence in trauma care. Our objective was to assess hemostatic therapy administration adherence to local ROTEM recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of trauma patients receiving ROTEM testing at a level 1 trauma center between January 1st 2017, and December 31st 2021. Adherence to local ROTEM best practices was determined by comparing the blood products patients received after a patient's first ROTEM test to those that should have been administered based on their ROTEM results. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between clinical and patient covariates with ROTEM adherence and between ROTEM adherence and in-hospital mortality.
resultsOnly 46.6% (n = 208/446) of patients had complete adherence to ROTEM recommendations. Product-specific adherence was lower when product initiation was recommended (vs. not) by ROTEM. A greater number of ROTEM abnormalities (odds ratio [OR]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.19) and a higher injury severity score (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98) reduced adherence. Adherence to ROTEM did not reduce in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.35-1.41). The number of ROTEM abnormalities was associated with in-hospital mortality (OR: 3.07, 95% CI: 2.01-4.77). DISCUSSION: We found moderate adherence to admission ROTEM recommendations with lower adherence for more severely injured patients. The number of ROTEM abnormalities increased the odds of in-hospital mortality. Quantifying adherence is valuable for understanding ROTEM implementations in trauma care.
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.