ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Assessment of Thromboelastography and Rotational Thromboelastometry in Trauma-Related Coagulopathy.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) has a crucial impact on the outcome and death rate in people suffering from trauma. This study aimed to evaluate the speed, reliability, and treatment decisions of thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) use in emergency trauma cases. Methods This prospective observational study was used to investigate 60 trauma patients with suspected coagulopathy. TEG and ROTEM measured clot initiation, its formation, strength, and lysis, along with the more common lab coagulation tests (prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts). All tests were performed to compare blood transfusion status, fibrinogen, antifibrinolytic use, and the timing of surgery. To assess the comparisons, Student's t-test and chi-square analysis were both carried out with a significant p-value of <0.05. Results Both TEG and ROTEM effectively assessed coagulopathy. ROTEM measured results faster, with a mean time of 24 minutes, compared to TEG with a mean time of 31 minutes (p<0.001). It was found that ROTEM resulted in quicker clotting time and clot formation (both p-values were 0.01 and 0.03). Patients under ROTEM treatment were treated and operated on sooner than those in the TEG group. However, there were no significant variations found in transfusion and fibrinogen use in TEG and ROTEM groups. Conclusion Both TEG and ROTEM can give reliable information about trauma patients' coagulopathy. With ROTEM, the results were obtained rapidly, and doctors were able to make clinical decisions faster in critical care cases. Even though clot test results were slightly different, both types of assays helped with better resuscitation for each patient.
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.