ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Use of viscoelastic testing in the transfusion management of burn patients: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severe burns cause complex hemostatic alterations that complicate transfusion management. Conventional coagulation tests (CCTs) have limitations in timely and accurately assessing these disorders. Viscoelastic tests (VETs), such as thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), allow for a dynamic and real-time evaluation of coagulation. A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies from 2010 to 2025 in English or Spanish that evaluated the use of VETs in burn patients were included. Databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were analyzed. Eighteen studies were included, mostly narrative reviews and observational studies. ROTEM was the most reported test. VETs were mainly used at admission and intraoperatively. Evidence indicates that TEG and ROTEM outperform CCTs in sensitivity, specificity, and speed, allowing for reduced transfusions and detection of both hypocoagulability and hypercoagulability. VETs are promising tools for transfusion management in burn patients. Although their use is not yet standardized, they offer significant advantages over CCTs and promote more accurate clinical decisions. More studies are needed to support their systematic implementation.
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.