ArticleJTCVS open2026
Hemostatic therapies and ambiguous abnormal bleeding in cardiac operating rooms: A real-world, case-based evaluation of clinical practices.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
Objective: Hemostatic therapy is commonly used in cardiac surgery. Despite tools to reduce inappropriate use, variability remains, mainly due to a lack of standards, especially intraoperatively. This study examined practices in cardiac operating rooms using a standardized clinical case. Methods: French cardiac anesthesiologists and surgeons responded to a nationwide questionnaire, including a multiple-choice test based on a clinical case of ambiguous bleeding despite normal tests. The use of hemostatic therapies during surgery-reversal, chest closure, and transfer-was assessed with a fictitious surgeon or anesthesiologist involved in the assessment. Interrater reliability was measured using Gwet's AC1, and ratings before and after the intervention were compared with a paired Fisher exact test. Nonclinical factors and perceptions of bleeding were evaluated using a Likert scale. Results: Interrater reliability was poor among 73 anesthesiologists (γ = 0.38 [95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.73]) and 31 surgeons (γ = 0.16 [95% confidence interval, -0.31 to 0.63]). Users' rates significantly increased since chest closure, mainly after the fictitious colleague intervention, regardless of profession (from 29.0% to 89.3% [ Conclusions: Hemostatic therapy may require standardization to better manage intraoperative bleeding. Teamwork, especially with surgeons, is vital for shared awareness in these complex situations.
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.