SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Treatment effects of fibrinogen concentrates vs. cryoprecipitate for correcting hypofibrinogenemia in cardiac surgery patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Fibrinogen Concentrate in Acute Hemorrhage: Mechanistic Insight, Thresholds, and Targeted Replacement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypofibrinogenemia in cardiac surgery increases bleeding risk, but the efficacy and safety of fibrinogen concentrate vs. cryoprecipitate remain unclear. This meta-analysis compares the patient-important outcomes associated with the use of fibrinogen concentrate vs. cryoprecipitate for the management of acquired hypofibrinogenemia in cardiac surgery. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Transfusion Evidence Library were searched from their inception until June 2024. Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Effect estimates were synthesized using risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD), along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We analyzed 4 RCTs (945 participants: 823 adults, 122 children) comparing fibrinogen concentrate with cryoprecipitate undergoing cardiac surgery. Meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality (RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.79-1.96; moderate GRADE), blood loss (SMD = -0.14, 95% CI: -0.46-0.18), transfusion rates (blood cells: RR = 0.98, 0.77-1.26; platelets: RR = 0.17, 0.02-1.40; fresh frozen plasma: RR = 0.48, 0.16-1.45; cryoprecipitate: RR = 1.02, 0.58-1.81), infections (RR = 0.91, 0.64-1.28), volume overload (RR = 1.95, 0.18-21.34), transfusion reactions (RR = 0.98, 0.06-15.54), or postoperative thrombosis (RR = 0.76, 0.47-1.22). No allergic reactions were reported. Subgroup analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity (I Conclusions: For patients undergoing cardiac surgery who experience clinically significant bleeding and hypofibrinogenemia, the available trial data provide moderate evidence that fibrinogen concentrate, compared to cryoprecipitate, does not increase the short-term risk of all-cause mortality. However, for the rate of transfusion of allogeneic or individual blood components, and adverse events, the existing evidence is of low certainty. Given the relatively small sample size, the group of children may not be representative of all children. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform), identifier CRD42023421670.
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.