ReviewPerioperative medicine (London, England)2026
Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.
Review in Perioperative medicine (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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative bleeding is a common surgical complication and a frequently used outcome in randomized trials; however, its definition and analysis are not straightforward and have important implications for trial design, statistical power and interpretation of treatment effect. This review aimed to summarize how perioperative bleeding was defined in randomized controlled trials, along with sample size considerations, analytic approaches, and interpretation practices.
methodsOn April 9th, 2025, we systematically searched the CENTRAL database for randomized trials in surgical settings published after January 2024 that evaluated perioperative bleeding as the primary outcome. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Where appropriate, we categorized findings into conceptually similar domains and applied descriptive analysis.
resultsWe included 115 trials reporting 116 primary bleeding outcomes and identified 36 unique definitions, with assessment periods ranging from intraoperative to more than 30 days postoperatively. Volumetric or gravimetric measures were most common (n = 46 [39.6%]), whereas patient-reported events (n = 5 [4.3%]) and clinical management of blood loss (n = 4 [3.4%]) were rare. Most trials reported a sample size calculation based on the primary outcome (n = 90 [78.3%]), but over one-third lacked effect-size justification (n = 34 [37.8%]). Analyses were predominantly parametric (n = 69 [59.5%]), while a few adjusted for baseline covariates (n = 18 [15.6%]). Interpretation in superiority trials relied mainly on statistical significance (n = 49 [47.6%]). Among noninferiority trials, noninferiority was often claimed without prespecified margins (n = 4 [33.3%]).
conclusionPerioperative bleeding outcomes are defined and analyzed with high inconsistency. Standardized outcome definitions and reporting practices are needed in this field to improve trial comparability and clinical relevance.
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.