ArticleJTCVS open2026
Abnormal bleeding in the cardiac operating room: An observational study of interrater reliability between anesthetists and surgeons.
Article in JTCVS open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Postcardiopulmonary bypass bleeding is frequent and distinctive because of its associated coagulopathy. Despite diagnostic and therapeutic progress, substantial variability persists in hemostatic transfusion practices. Because transfusion of hemostatic components should target abnormal bleeding, this study assessed the situational awareness of anesthetists and surgeons in such situations. Methods: A nationwide questionnaire using real intraoperative video clips-3 normal, 8 ambiguously abnormal, and 6 clearly abnormal situations-evaluated interrater reliability for identifying abnormal bleeding, inferring residual coagulopathy, and deciding on immediate hemostatic transfusion. Agreement was measured by Gwet's AC1 (γ [95% CI]) and classified per Landis and Koch. A generalized mixed linear model assessed the impact of abnormality level on intra-dyad agreement. Results: Among 47 surgeons and 54 anesthetists, interrater reliability for abnormal bleeding perception was "moderate" (γ = 0.47 [0.32-0.62]) but significantly lower for abnormal situations (γ = 0.43 [0.28-0.58] vs γ = 0.96 [0.91-1.00]), and "poor" for ambiguously abnormal ones (γ = 0.20 [0.03-0.37]). Reliability for identifying residual coagulopathy remained "poor" overall (γ = 0.27 [-0.28 to 0.58]). For clearly abnormal situations, agreement on immediate hemostatic transfusion was "moderate" (γ = 0.51 [0.44-0.58]) but differed by specialty (γ = 0.38 [0.28-0.49] for anesthetists vs γ = 0.65 [0.52-0.78] for surgeons), and intra-dyad agreement was 6 times lower than for ambiguously abnormal situations (odds ratio, 0.18 [0.17-0.19]). Conclusions: Abnormal bleeding during cardiac surgery is complex and often difficult to assess instantly. Beyond cognitive aids, enhanced training to improve shared situational awareness and develop a common mental model could reduce practice variability and strengthen patient blood management and safety.
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.