ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Comparison of scoring systems for bleeding in open cardiac surgery patients.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: The aim of our study was to determine which preoperative bleeding risk scoring system is more sensitive in predicting perioperative transfusion requirement in patients undergoing open-heart surgery. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective single-center cohort study. Seven scoring systems (TRACK, PAPWORTH, WILL-BLEED, CRUSADE, ACTION, TRUST, ACTA-PORT) were used to predict the likelihood of perioperative erythrocyte suspension (ES) transfusion requirement. Results: Four hundred patients were enrolled in the study. Age, creatinine level, and diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and hypertension were significantly higher in patients who required ES (p < 0.05). In addition, ejection fraction percentages and hemoglobin and hematocrit levels were significantly lower (p < 0.05). Except for PAPWORTH; ACTION, ACTA-PORT, WILL-BLEED, TRACK, TRUST, and CRUSADE scores were higher in the ES group (p < 0.05), but the most predictive scoring system for ES use was TRUST. Conclusion: The ACTION and ACTA-PORT systems were also found to significantly predict ES use, but the WILL-BLEED, TRUST, and TRACK systems were found to be more predictive of bleeding and ES transfusion requirement in CABG operations. Furthermore, low EF, Hb, and Hct levels, higher creatinine levels, and the presence of DM were identified as individual risk factors for perioperative bleeding, apart from the scoring systems.
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.