Observational studyScientific reports2026
Comparison of two viscoelastic devices in patients with severe trauma: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Trauma-induced coagulopathy exacerbates bleeding in severely injured patients, thus worsening clinical outcomes and increasing mortality. Viscoelastic measurement is recommended for trauma induced coagulopathy detection, and the ROTEM® device is routinely used to guide treatment algorithms. ClotPro®, a newer device similar to ROTEM®, has limited evidence supporting its use in patients with trauma. This study aimed to assess agreement and interchangeability between ClotPro® and ROTEM® Delta in severe trauma patients and to evaluate the diagnostic performance of selected viscoelastic parameters against conventional coagulation tests. This prospective, single-arm, observational cohort study was conducted in the emergency department at a level 1 trauma centre. Blood samples from 108 patients with trauma, collected between 2019 and 2021, were analysed with ROTEM® Delta, ClotPro® and standard coagulation tests. Device consistency and agreement for extrinsic and fibrinogen-specific assays were assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Spearman correlation for laboratory parameters. For calculation of the optimal cutoff values, ROC analyses were performed, with area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity calculated. The best cutoff points were selected by maximization of the Youden index. Among patients with a median Injury Severity Score of 29, ROTEM® Delta and ClotPro® showed good reliability for CFT (ICC = 0.787, p < 0.0001) and MCF (ICC = 0.762, p < 0.0001) in extrinsic assays but moderate reliability for A10 (ICC = 0.666, p < 0.0001) and ML (ICC = 0.525, p = 0.0235). Results with both devices demonstrated a moderate correlation with platelet count (ROTEM® Delta: Rs = 0.472, p < 0.0001; ClotPro®: Rs = 0.481, p < 0.0001). Fibrinogen-specific assays correlated strongly with Clauss method fibrinogen levels (FIBTEM MCF Rs = 0.779, p < 0.0001; FIB-test MCF Rs = 0.751, p < 0.0001), although the reliability was poor for MCF (ICC = 0.371, p < 0.0001) between devices. ClotPro® consistently showed higher A10 and MCF values than ROTEM® in fibrinogen-specific assays. In patients with trauma, ROTEM® and ClotPro® parameters showed significant variability; therefore, the two devices cannot be used interchangeably with trauma bleeding management algorithms. A ClotPro® specific algorithm should be established for the management of trauma induced coagulopathy and bleeding.
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.