ReviewCureus2026
Bleeding Risk Assessment and Management Strategies for Elective Surgery and Invasive Procedures: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with suspected or confirmed bleeding disorders present a distinct challenge during elective surgery and invasive procedures, as hemostatic abnormalities are heterogeneous and evidence to guide risk stratification and management remains limited, especially when routine laboratory testing is inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to synthesize available evidence on bleeding risk assessment approaches, perioperative bleeding outcomes, and hemostatic management strategies in individuals with established inherited bleeding disorders, as well as less clearly defined phenotypes such as low von Willebrand factor levels and bleeding disorders of unknown cause undergoing elective surgery or invasive procedures. We searched major electronic databases and supplementary sources for studies reporting perioperative or periprocedural bleeding outcomes and preventive or therapeutic hemostatic interventions. Due to substantial heterogeneity in study design, populations, procedures, outcome definitions, and management approaches, findings were synthesized narratively. Overall, the evidence suggests that a structured bleeding history is central to perioperative risk evaluation and may be more informative than routine coagulation screening for predicting bleeding complications, while bleeding assessment tools and laboratory parameters are inconsistently incorporated into decision-making. Hemostatic strategies, including antifibrinolytics, desmopressin, factor concentrates, and blood products, varied widely across studies and were often guided by expert judgment rather than standardized pathways. The evidence base was limited by retrospective designs, small sample sizes, and inconsistent reporting of outcomes. These findings highlight the need for prospective studies and standardized perioperative assessment and management pathways to improve procedural safety while avoiding unnecessary interventions.
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.