Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2026
Optimal fibrinogen threshold in non-traumatic massive bleeding: a multicenter retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 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
35 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines make no recommendation regarding appropriate fibrinogen replacement thresholds for non-traumatic massive bleeding. We aimed to determine the optimal post-treatment fibrinogen level associated with survival in critically ill patients with non-traumatic massive bleeding.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study enrolled adult ICU patients with non-traumatic massive bleeding and hypofibrinogenemia (fibrinogen <2.0 g/L) from 12 centers in China (2018–2025). Maximum fibrinogen level (FIBmax) achieved during treatment within 3 Days of hemorrhage onset was the primary predictor. We used the Boruta algorithm for variable selection, multivariable logistic regression to assess the independent association between FIBmax and hospital mortality, restricted cubic splines to examine dose-response relationships, and pairwise group comparisons with Bonferroni correction to identify the optimal threshold.
resultsAmong 358 patients (median age 59 years; 62.6% male), 74 (20.7%) died during hospitalization. FIBmax was independently associated with hospital mortality after adjustment for confounders (OR 0.37 per g/L increase; 95% CI 0.25–0.57; P < 0.001). Adding FIBmax to the base model significantly improved discrimination (AUC 0.899 vs. 0.868; P = 0.017), calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.096 vs. 0.031), and reclassification (NRI 0.814; IDI 0.076). Restricted cubic spline analysis revealed a non-linear dose-response relationship (P for non-linearity = 0.026), with an inflection point at 2.03 g/L. Pairwise comparisons identified a significant hospital mortality transition at 2.0 g/L: patients with FIBmax of 1.5–2.0 g/L had 3.23-fold higher hospital mortality compared to those achieving 2.0–2.5 g/L (P = 0.004), representing the only significant transition point across all adjacent group comparisons. Hospital mortality plateaued at higher levels, with no additional benefit observed above 2.5 g/L. Patients achieving FIBmax ≥ 2.0 g/L had hospital mortality of 10.1% versus 48.0% for those below this threshold (P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn critically ill patients with non-traumatic massive bleeding, a post-treatment fibrinogen level of 2.0–2.5 g/L appears optimal, and 2.0 g/L may represent a potential therapeutic threshold.
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.