ArticleBMC surgery2026
Hidden blood loss estimation using perioperative hemoglobin drop: agreement with the Sehat formula.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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.
- Impact of hematologic disorders on decline in hemoglobin levels after total hip arthroplasty.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
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
backgroundPerioperative hemoglobin drop is widely used as a surrogate marker for blood loss and transfusion risk across surgical disciplines. However, its agreement with dilution-based estimates of hidden blood loss remains insufficiently validated. As both approaches represent indirect estimators rather than a reference standard, this study evaluates agreement rather than validation.
methodsThis retrospective registry-based study included 828 patients undergoing elective primary total hip arthroplasty between 2016 and 2023. Hemoglobin drop was defined as the difference between preoperative hemoglobin and the lowest postoperative value within 48 h. Hidden blood loss was calculated using the Gross-Sehat method with blood volume estimation according to Nadler. Agreement between hemoglobin drop and hidden blood loss was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients. Discriminative performance for identifying patients with high hidden blood loss (upper quartile) was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
resultsMean perioperative hemoglobin drop was 33.5 ± 12.3 g/L. Mean hidden blood loss was 854.9 mL, accounting for the majority of total blood loss. Agreement between hemoglobin drop and hidden blood loss was limited, with wide limits of agreement on Bland-Altman analysis. Although a positive association was observed, substantial interindividual variability persisted, particularly at higher blood loss levels. Hemoglobin drop demonstrated only moderate discriminative performance for identifying patients with high hidden blood loss.
conclusionPerioperative hemoglobin drop shows only moderate agreement with dilution-based estimates of hidden blood loss and cannot reliably replace formal blood loss calculations at the individual patient level. These findings have implications for perioperative blood management and caution against reliance on hemoglobin change alone for blood loss assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE (LOE): Level III - retrospective cohort study / registry-based observational study.
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.