The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 47 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Point-of-Care Testing: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: The current investigation aimed to study the efficacy of hemostatic therapy guided either by conventional coagulation analyses or point-of-care (POC) testing in coagulopathic cardiac surgery patients. Methods: Patients undergoing complex cardiac surgery were assessed for eligibility. Those patients in whom diffuse bleeding was diagnosed after heparin reversal or increased blood loss during the first 24 postoperative hours were enrolled and randomized to the conventional or POC group. Thromboelastometry and whole blood impedance aggregometry have been performed in the POC group. The primary outcome variable was the number of transfused units of packed erythrocytes during the first 24 h after inclusion. Secondary outcome variables included postoperative blood loss, use and costs of hemostatic therapy, and clinical outcome parameters. Sample size analysis revealed a sample size of at least 100 patients per group. Results: There were 152 patients who were screened for eligibility and 100 patients were enrolled in the study. After randomization of 50 patients to each group, a planned interim analysis revealed a significant difference in erythrocyte transfusion rate in the conventional compared with the POC group [5 (4;9) versus 3 (2;6) units [median (25 and 75 percentile)], P<0.001]. The study was terminated early. The secondary outcome parameters of fresh frozen plasma and platelet transfusion rates, postoperative mechanical ventilation time, length of intensive care unit stay, composite adverse events rate, costs of hemostatic therapy, and 6-month mortality were lower in the POC group. Conclusions: Hemostatic therapy based on POC testing reduced patient exposure to allogenic blood products and provided significant benefits with respect to clinical outcomes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
34 Own result · 24 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 7 Partly supported · 6 Sources not found · 3 No full text of the sources · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Supported so far · 1 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this context, algorithm-based hemostatic therapy has been shown to be superior to empiric hemostatic therapy that is based on clinical judgment.5”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [5] 5. Avidan MS, Alcock EL, Da Fonseca J, Ponte J, Desai JB, Despotis GJ, Hunt BJ: Comparison of structured use of rou- tine laboratory tests or near-patient assessment with clinical judgement in the management of bleeding after cardiac sur- gery. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92:178 -86 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion report that algorithm-guided management after routine cardiac surgery reduced transfusions compared with clinician discretion. They also report similar blood loss across groups, so the unqualified claim of superior hemostatic therapy is broader than the demonstrated benefit. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, in most cases, they have a long turnaround time of at least 30 -45 min.[33][34][35]”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] 33. Toulon P, Ozier Y, Ankri A, Fleron MH, Leroux G, Samama CM: Point-of-care versus central laboratory coagulation test- ing during haemorrhagic surgery. A multicenter study. Thromb Haemost 2009; 101:394 -401
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [34] 34. Haas T, Spielmann N, Mauch J, Madjdpour C, Speer O, Schmugge M, Weiss M: Comparison of thromboelastometry (ROTEM) with standard plasmatic coagulation testing in paediatric surgery. Br J Anaesth 2012; 108:36 -41 source
The Results report a median turnaround time of 53 minutes for standard coagulation tests, with an interquartile range of 45–63 minutes. In this paediatric surgical setting, that supports the cited statement that results usually take at least 30–45 minutes. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Dirkmann D, Go ¨rlinger K, Dusse F, Kottenberg E, Peters J: Early clot firmness accurately predicts maximum clot firm- ness in thromboelastometry during cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:105-6 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This issue of inappropriateness of blood transfusion did not dramatically change during the past 20 yr.[27][28][29]”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [27] 27. Snyder-Ramos SA, Mo ¨hnle P, Weng YS, Bo ¨ttiger BW, Kulier A, Levin J, Mangano DT; Investigators of the Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia; MCSPI Research Group: The ongoing variability in blood transfusion practices in cardiac surgery. Transfusion 2008; 48:1284 -99
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] 28. Shander A, Fink A, Javidroozi M, Erhard J, Farmer SL, Corwin H, Goodnough LT, Hofmann A, Isbister J, Ozawa S, Spahn DR; International Consensus Conference on Transfusion Out- comes Group: Appropriateness of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion: The international consensus conference on transfusion outcomes. Transfus Med Rev 2011;25: 232- 46.e53 source
- Partly supportedcites [29] 29. Stanworth SJ, Grant-Casey J, Lowe D, Laffan M, New H, Murphy MF, Allard S: The use of fresh-frozen plasma in England: High levels of inappropriate use in adults and chil- dren. Transfusion 2011; 51:62-70 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that many patients were continuing to receive fresh-frozen plasma unnecessarily. It does not compare inappropriate use across the past 20 years, and its findings concern fresh-frozen plasma rather than blood transfusion generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“A10 values in ROTEM tests have been shown to reliably predict maximum clot firmness.36”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [36] 36. Venema LF, Post WJ, Hendriks HG, Huet RC, de Wolf JT, de Vries AJ: An assessment of clinical interchangeability of TEG and RoTEM thromboelastographic variables in cardiac surgi- cal patients. Anesth Analg 2010; 111:39 -44 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The retrieved passages are bibliographic metadata rather than findings about clot measurements (indexed section labeled Abstract, no page). Searches for A10, ten-minute clot amplitude, and prediction of maximum clot firmness found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Two recently published prospective observational studies reported a median turnaround time for conventional coagulation tests, performed in the central laboratory, of 88 min (range: 29 -235 min) and 53 min (interquartile range: 45-63 min), respectively.34,35”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] 34. Haas T, Spielmann N, Mauch J, Madjdpour C, Speer O, Schmugge M, Weiss M: Comparison of thromboelastometry (ROTEM) with standard plasmatic coagulation testing in paediatric surgery. Br J Anaesth 2012; 108:36 -41 source
The Results report that conventional coagulation-test results from the central laboratory were communicated a median of 53 minutes after blood sampling (IQR 45–63 minutes). The sentence assigns that figure to this source, respectively; the 88-minute figure belongs to the other cited study. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Dirkmann D, Go ¨rlinger K, Dusse F, Kottenberg E, Peters J: Early clot firmness accurately predicts maximum clot firm- ness in thromboelastometry during cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:105-6 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Of note, Multiplate results have been shown to bear a good correlation to bleeding and thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing coronary stenting and cardiac surgery.44,45”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] 44. Ferreiro JL, Sibbing D, Angiolillo DJ: Platelet function testing and risk of bleeding complications. Thromb Haemost 2010; 103:1128 -35 source
- Partly supportedcites [45] 45. Sibbing D, Steinhubl SR, Schulz S, Scho ¨mig A, Kastrati A: Platelet aggregation and its association with stent thrombosis and bleeding in clopidogrel-treated patients: Initial evidence of a therapeutic window. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:317-8 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Initial Evidence of a Therapeutic Window” (page not available), Multiplate-measured platelet aggregation is associated with stent thrombosis and major bleeding among clopidogrel-treated patients undergoing coronary stenting. The paper does not report findings for patients undergoing cardiac surgery, so it supports only the coronary-stenting part of the cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the FFP dosage per transfused patient was lower in the POC group.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“With regard to reduction in transfusion requirements, hemostatic therapy, and costs, our results are in line with our retrospective cohort study 20”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. Go ¨rlinger K, Dirkmann D, Hanke AA, Kamler M, Kottenberg E, Thielmann M, Jakob H, Peters J: First-line therapy with coagulation factor concentrates combined with point-of-care coagulation testing is associated with decreased allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiovascular surgery. A retrospective, single-center cohort study. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2011; 115: 1179 -91
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both time of mechanical ventilation and duration of ICU treatment were longer in the conventional group.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were 10 of 50 patients (20%) in the conventional group and 2 of 50 patients (4%) in the POC group who died during the 6-month follow-up period (P ϭ 0.013).”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
plaindirectn = 50 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 24
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is some evidence from studies using viscoelastic analyses of clot formation and dissolution that the implementation of point-of-care (POC) measurements in hemostatic therapy algorithms may reduce the transfusion rate of allogenic blood products and positively influence clinical outcomes.6 -10”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] 6. Shore-Lesserson L, Manspeizer HE, DePerio M, Francis S, Vela-Cantos F, Ergin MA: Thromboelastography-guided trans- fusion algorithm reduces transfusions in complex cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 88:312-9 source
- Supportedcites [7] 7. Nuttall GA, Oliver WC, Santrach PJ, Bryant S, Dearani JA, Schaff HV, Ereth MH: Efficacy of a simple intraoperative transfusion algorithm for nonerythrocyte component utiliza- tion after cardiopulmonary bypass. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2001; 94: 773-81; discussion 5A-6A source
The Transfusion Protocols and Discussion sections say the algorithm used the point-of-care thromboelastograph maximum amplitude to guide therapy. The Abstract reports fewer allogeneic plasma and platelet transfusions and less ICU blood loss; the Discussion also reports fewer mediastinal reexplorations for hemorrhage. These findings support the citing sentence’s cautious claim, although the algorithm used other coagulation tests as well. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. Ak K, Isbir CS, Tetik S, Atalan N, Tekeli A, Aljodi M, Civelek A, Arsan S: Thromboelastography-based transfusion algo- rithm reduces blood product use after elective CABG: A prospective randomized study. J Card Surg 2009; 24:404 -10 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. Westbrook AJ, Olsen J, Bailey M, Bates J, Scully M, Salamon- sen RF: Protocol based on thromboelastograph (TEG) out- performs physician preference using laboratory coagulation tests to guide blood replacement during and after cardiac surgery: A pilot study. Heart Lung Circ 2009; 18:277-88 source
- Partly supportedcites [10] 10. Girdauskas E, Kempfert J, Kuntze T, Borger MA, Enders J, Fassl J, Falk V, Mohr FW: Thromboelastometrically guided transfusion protocol during aortic surgery with circulatory arrest: A prospective, randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 140:1117-24.e2 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report fewer cumulative allogeneic blood units with the ROTEM-guided algorithm (9.0 versus 16.0 units; P = .02). They also state that clinical outcomes, including ICU stay, hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality, were similar between groups. The source therefore supports reduced transfusion but not improved clinical outcomes. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“in another recently published retrospective analysis including 1,188 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB, postoperative hemorrhage was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased 30-day mortality (5.5% vs. 22.4% in the nonbleeding and bleeding patients, respectively), and hospital costs.21,22”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [21] 21. Christensen MC, Krapf S, Kempel A, von Heymann C: Costs of excessive postoperative hemorrhage in cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 138:687-93 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Partly supportedcites [22] 22. Christensen MC, Dziewior F, Kempel A, von Heymann C: Increased chest tube drainage is independently associated with adverse outcome after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012; 26:46 -51 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelationaln = 1,188- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“(which is comparable with data obtained by Hardy et al. 25 )”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [25] 25. Hardy JF, Perrault J, Tremblay N, Robitaille D, Blain R, Car- rier M: The stratification of cardiac surgical procedures ac- cording to use of blood products: A retrospective analysis of 1480 cases. Can J Anaesth 1991; 38:511-7 source
The Results (Table II) report mean units of packed red blood cells transfused for several cardiac procedures, providing the Hardy et al. data invoked by the citation. The comparison with the citing study’s conventional group is the citing authors’ assessment, not a finding attributed to Hardy et al. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This may allow for more specific goal-directed interventions to reduce both transfusion requirements and thromboembolic complications.20,46”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. Go ¨rlinger K, Dirkmann D, Hanke AA, Kamler M, Kottenberg E, Thielmann M, Jakob H, Peters J: First-line therapy with coagulation factor concentrates combined with point-of-care coagulation testing is associated with decreased allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiovascular surgery. A retrospective, single-center cohort study. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2011; 115: 1179 -91
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [46] 46. Despotis G, Avidan M, Eby C: Prediction and management of bleeding in cardiac surgery. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7:111-7 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Clinical utility of point-of-care tests and transfusion algorithms” (page unavailable), the review reports that test-guided transfusion algorithms reduce transfusion requirements and help select therapy for clinical bleeding. It warns that unwarranted prophylactic treatment may cause thrombotic complications, but does not show that goal-directed interventions reduce thromboembolic complications. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Therefore, they are able to detect tissue factor expression on circulating cells, fibrin polymerization disorders, e.g., due to colloid infusion, hyperfibrinolysis, as well as platelet dysfunction due to CPB or antiplatelet drugs.38 -44”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] 38. Zacharowski K, Sucker C, Zacharowski P, Hartmann M: Thrombelastography for the monitoring of lipopolysaccha- ride induced activation of coagulation. Thromb Haemost 2006; 95:557-61 source
- Not matchedcites [39] 39. Reinho ¨fer M, Brauer M, Franke U, Barz D, Marx G, Lo ¨sche W: The value of rotation thromboelastometry to monitor dis- turbed perioperative haemostasis and bleeding risk in pa- tients with cardiopulmonary bypass. Blood Coagul Fibrino- lysis 2008; 19:212-9
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] 40. Bolliger D, Go ¨rlinger K, Tanaka KA: Pathophysiology and treatment of coagulopathy in massive hemorrhage and he- modilution. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2010; 113:1205-19 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] 41. Fenger-Eriksen C, Moore GW, Rangarajan S, Ingerslev J, Sø- rensen B: Fibrinogen estimates are influenced by methods of measurement and hemodilution with colloid plasma expand- ers. Transfusion 2010; 50:2571-6 source
- Partly supportedcites [42] 42. Larsen OH, Fenger-Eriksen C, Christiansen K, Ingerslev J, Sørensen B: Diagnostic performance and therapeutic conse- quence of thromboelastometry activated by kaolin versus a panel of specific reagents. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2011; 115:294 - 302 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says FIBTEM identified dilutional coagulopathy and links colloid administration to abnormal fibrinogen polymerization. The diagnostic results (page unavailable) also report detection of modeled hyperfibrinolysis. The paper does not establish detection of tissue-factor expression on circulating cells or platelet dysfunction caused by cardiopulmonary bypass or antiplatelet drugs; its platelet model was thrombocytopenia. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Rahe-Meyer N, Winterhalter M, Boden A, Froemke C, Piepen- brock S, Calatzis A, Solomon C: Platelet concentrates trans- fusion in cardiac surgery and platelet function assessment by multiple electrode aggregometry. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53:168 -75 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] 44. Ferreiro JL, Sibbing D, Angiolillo DJ: Platelet function testing and risk of bleeding complications. Thromb Haemost 2010; 103:1128 -35 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the dimension of the observed reduction in mortality exceeded our expectations.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In univariate log regression, performed to assess whether the known potential risk factors CPB time and redo surgery might have had an effect on mortality in our study in addition to group allocation, only group allocation (P ϭ 0.014) and CPB time (P ϭ 0.001) were significant predictors of mortality, whereas redo surgery was not (P ϭ 0.07).”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patients in the POC group had a lower exposure to FFP and PC during the study period, and they received equal (or, with respect to rFVIIa, lower) dosages of coagulation factor concentrates.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although patients in the conventional group had higher intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, we detected no group differences in the hemoglobin concentration.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in univariate log regression and subsequent multivariate analysis, both group allocation and CPB time have been shown to be independent significant predictors of mortality.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“only CPB time approaches statistical significance with a slight but nonsignificant favor (P ϭ 0.104) to shorter CPB times for the POC group (95% CI for the difference of mean CPB times is Ϫ39 to 4 min).”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although the reduction in the incidence of composite adverse events and 6-month mortality achieved statistical significance in the POC group.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Limitations to the Study
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An interim analysis of the primary outcome variable was planned after inclusion of 50% (n ϭ 100) of the study population.The study was planned to be terminated early if group differences in the number of transfused packed erythrocytes exceeded a level of significance defined as P Ͻ 0.01.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Interim Analysis, Ethical Review Board, and Stopping Guidelines
plainn = 100- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The costs analyses did not include the acquisition costs of the POC devices, the costs for disposables in the central laboratory and labor costs for the technicians in the central laboratory.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we did not analyze the transfusion requirements during the entire hospital stay so that survival bias was minimized.23,24”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] 23. Snyder CW, Weinberg JA, McGwin G Jr, Melton SM, George RL, Reiff DA, Cross JM, Hubbard-Brown J, Rue LW 3rd, Kerby JD: The relationship of blood product ratio to mortality: Survival benefit or survival bias? J Trauma 2009; 66:358 -62; discussion 362-4 source
- Not matchedcites [24] 24. Ho AM, Dion PW, Yeung JH, Holcomb JB, Critchley LA, Ng CS, Karmakar MK, Cheung CW, Rainer TH: Prevalence of survivor bias in observational studies on fresh frozen plasma: Erythrocyte ratios in trauma requiring massive transfusion. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2012; 116:716 -28
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a total of 100 patients were randomized: 50 to the conventional group and 50 to the POC group.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“There were no losses or exclusions following randomization.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
plainn = 100- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hemostatic therapy based on POC testing reduced patient exposure to allogenic blood products and provided significant benefits with respect to clinical outcomes.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“The primary study results showed that the use of hemostatic therapy algorithms based on POC testing was associated with (1) reduced perioperative exposure to allogenic blood products and (2) improved clinical outcome.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The clinical criteria used for enrollment (diffuse bleeding from capillary beds or blood loss exceeding 250 ml/h or 50 ml/10 min) identify patients with coagulopathy requiring hemostatic therapy.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Standard quality control procedures for each device were routinely performed following the manufacturer's recommendations.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Aggregometric POC Testing.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a conservative choice, adjustments for multiple comparisons were only performed for PaO 2 /FiO 2 indices and postoperative chest tube blood loss.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no group differences regarding baseline demographics or clinical or laboratory characteristics (table 1).”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
plainn = 100- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ran-domization list was computer-generated using a balanced (allocation ratio 1:1) blockwise (20*10) randomization by the software BiAS for Windows 9.07 © (Epsilon Inc., Darmstadt, Germany).”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of conventional coagulation tests were not used for guiding hemostatic therapy in the POC group.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Hemostatic Therapy Algorithms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All tests were two-sided, and the level of significance was set to P Ͻ 0.05.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, a reduction in patient exposure to allogenic blood products may minimize the incidence of transfusion-related complications, may beneficially influence clinical outcome, and definitely reduces the primary and secondary costs of transfusions.1,30,31”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] 1. Murphy GJ, Reeves BC, Rogers CA, Rizvi SI, Culliford L, Angelini GD: Increased mortality, postoperative morbidity, and cost after red blood cell transfusion in patients having cardiac surgery. Circulation 2007; 116:2544 -52 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] 30. Kaushal R, Bates DW, Franz C, Soukup JR, Rothschild JM: Costs of adverse events in intensive care units. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:2479 -83 source
- Not matchedcites [31] 31. Despotis G, Eby C, Lublin DM: A review of transfusion risks and optimal management of perioperative bleeding with cardiac surgery. Transfusion 2008; 48:2S-30S 32. Sniecinski RM, Levy JH: Bleeding and management of coagu- lopathy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142:662-7
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The POCbased algorithm has been used in several university hospitals in Germany since 2007 and its efficacy has recently been described in a retrospective study that included 3,865 cardiac surgery patients.19,20”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Hemostatic Therapy Algorithms
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Go ¨rlinger K, Dirkmann D, Weber CF, Rahe-Meyer N, Hanke AA: Algorithms for transfusion and coagulation management in massive haemorrhage. Ana ¨sth Intensivmed 2011; 52: 145-59
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. Go ¨rlinger K, Dirkmann D, Hanke AA, Kamler M, Kottenberg E, Thielmann M, Jakob H, Peters J: First-line therapy with coagulation factor concentrates combined with point-of-care coagulation testing is associated with decreased allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiovascular surgery. A retrospective, single-center cohort study. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2011; 115: 1179 -91
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 3,865- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attending physicians in the POC group were blinded to the results of conventional coagulation tests.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Hematologic Analyses Conventional Coagulation Tests.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov(Identifier: NCT00997841)”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Trial Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current study complies with the declaration of Helsinki, was approved by the local Scientific and Ethics Review Board (Ethics-Committee of the Goethe-University Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany), and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov(Identifier: NCT00997841).All patients gave written informed consent.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Trial Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After patient randomization to the conventional or POC group, coagulation analyses and algorithm-based hemostatic therapy were performed in a nonblinded fashion-thus there is a chance of bias.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Limitations to the Study
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, POC-guided therapy was associated with lower FFP and PC usage and costs as well as an improved clinical outcome in this prospective randomized single-center study.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both types of hemostatic therapy algorithms conform to evidence-based hemostatic therapy management and were comparable in their structural progression of therapy escalation.9,19,47”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. Westbrook AJ, Olsen J, Bailey M, Bates J, Scully M, Salamon- sen RF: Protocol based on thromboelastograph (TEG) out- performs physician preference using laboratory coagulation tests to guide blood replacement during and after cardiac surgery: A pilot study. Heart Lung Circ 2009; 18:277-88 source
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Go ¨rlinger K, Dirkmann D, Weber CF, Rahe-Meyer N, Hanke AA: Algorithms for transfusion and coagulation management in massive haemorrhage. Ana ¨sth Intensivmed 2011; 52: 145-59
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this study published by Haas et al., 35 ROTEM analysis was performed in the central laboratory and submitted online to a screen in the operation room.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] 35. Dirkmann D, Go ¨rlinger K, Dusse F, Kottenberg E, Peters J: Early clot firmness accurately predicts maximum clot firm- ness in thromboelastometry during cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:105-6 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The clinical applicability of both algorithms can be assumed because all patients had hemostatic testing before therapy and none of them received therapy that deviated from the allocated algorithm.”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The clinical criteria used for enrollment (diffuse bleeding from capillary beds or blood loss exceeding 250 ml/h or 50 ml/10 min) identify patients with coagulopathy requiring hemostatic therapy.
“Patients were enrolled in the study after heparin reversal following CPB if at least one of the two inclusion criteria were fulfilled: (1) diffuse bleeding from capillary beds at wound surfaces requiring hemostatic therapy as assessed by the anesthesiologist and surgeon by inspecting the operative field and/or (2) intraoperative or postoperative (during the first 24 postoperative hours) blood loss”
The paper relies on this without support.
The amount of transfused packed erythrocytes is a reliable surrogate parameter for the efficacy of hemostatic therapy.
“Because the amount of transfused packed erythrocytes represents a reliable surrogate parameter for the efficacy of hemostatic therapy, it was defined as the primary outcome variable of the current study.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bleeding and the consecutive need for transfusion of packed erythrocytes in the intraoperative period and the first 24 h after surgery reflect the surgery-associated coagulopathy and the potential effects of different hemostatic strategies.
“Bleeding and the consecutive need for transfusion of packed erythrocytes in the intraoperative period and the first 24 h after surgery most likely reflect the surgery-associated coagulopathy and thus the potential effects of different hemostatic strategies.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Discussion
“The mean amount of units transfused was 5 (4, 9) in the conventional group (which is comparable with data obtained by Hardy et al. 25 ) versus 3 (2, 6) in the POC group (P Ͻ 0.001).”
§ Point-of-Care Testing A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy in Coagulopathic Cardiac Surgery Patients > Results
“The cumulative dosages of packed erythrocytes during the study period were 5 (4, 9) units [median (25 th and 75 th percentile)] in the conventional group and 3 (2, 6) units in the POC group (P Ͻ 0.001).”
Citations
Cites
Murphy, G. J., Reeves, B. C., Rogers, C. A., Rizvi, S. I. A., Culliford, L., & Angelini, G. D. (2007) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.698977 · Cited by 1,371
Thromboelastography-Guided Transfusion Algorithm Reduces Transfusions in Complex Cardiac Surgery
Shore-Lesserson, L., Manspeizer, H. E., DePerio, M., Francis, S., Vela-Cantos, F., & Ergin, M. A. (1999) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1097/00000539-199902000-00016 · Cited by 845
The electronic aggregometer: A novel device for assessing platelet behavior in blood
Cardinal, D. C., & Flower, R. J. (1980) · Journal of Pharmacological Methods · doi:10.1016/0160-5402(80)90024-8 · Cited by 698
Thromboelastography-Guided Transfusion Algorithm Reduces Transfusions in Complex Cardiac Surgery
Shore-Lesserson, L. J., Manspeizer, H. E., DePerio, M., et al. (1999) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/00000539-199902000-00016 · Cited by 675
Multiple electrode aggregometry: A new device to measure platelet aggregation in whole blood
Calatzis, A., Penz, S. M., Losonczy, H., et al. (2006) · Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1160/th06-05-0242 · Cited by 538
Görlinger, K., Dirkmann, D., Hanke, A., Kamler, M., Kottenberg, E., Thielmann, M., Jakob, H. G., & Peters, J. (2011) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e31823497dd · Cited by 425
Self-citationReexploration for bleeding is a risk factor for adverse outcomes after cardiac operations
Moulton, M. J., Creswell, L. L., Mackey, M. E., Cox, J. L., & Rosenbloom, M. (1996) · Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0022-5223(96)70380-x · Cited by 416
Guidelines on the management of massive blood loss
Stainsby, D., MacLennan, S., Thomas, D., Isaac, J., & Hamilton, P. J. S. (2006) · British Journal of Haematology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06355.x · Cited by 398
The Relationship of Blood Product Ratio to Mortality: Survival Benefit or Survival Bias?
Snyder, C. W., Weinberg, J. A., McGwin, G., Melton, S. M., George, R. L., Reiff, D. A., Cross, J. M., Hubbard-Brown, J., Rue, L. W., & Kerby, J. D. (2009) · Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection & Critical Care · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e318196c3ac · Cited by 384
Haas, T., Spielmann, N., Mauch, J., Madjdpour, C., Speer, O., Schmugge, M., & Weiss, M. (2012) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aer342 · Cited by 335
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [4]4. Levy JH, Dutton RP, Hemphill JC 3rd, Shander A, Cooper D, Paidas MJ, Kessler CM, Holcomb JB, Lawson JH, Hemostasis Summit Participants: Multidisciplinary approach to the chal- lenge of hemostasis. Anesth Analg 2010; 110:354 -64
- [11]11. Luddington RJ: Thrombelastography/thromboelastometry. Clin Lab Haematol 2005; 27:81-90
- [15]15. The Board of the German Medical Association on the Rec- ommendation of the Scientific Advisory Board: Cross-sec- tional guidelines for therapy with blood components and plasma derivatives(4th revised edition). Transfus Med He- mother 2009; 36:351-482
- [17]17. Society of Thoracic Surgeons Blood Conservation Guideline Task Force, Ferraris VA, Ferraris SP, Saha SP, Hessel EA 2nd, Haan CK, Royston BD, Bridges CR, Higgins RS, Despotis G, Brown JR, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Spe- cial Task Force on Blood Transfusion, Spiess BD, Shore- Lesserson L, Stafford-Smith M, Mazer CD, Bennett-Guerrero E, Hill SE, Body S: Perioperative blood transfusion and blood conservation in cardiac surgery: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiolo- gists clinical practice guideline. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83: S27-86
- [18]18. Napolitano LM, Kurek S, Luchette FA, Corwin HL, Barie PS, Tisherman SA, Hebert PC, Anderson GL, Bard MR, Bromberg W, Chiu WC, Cipolle MD, Clancy KD, Diebel L, Hoff WS, Hughes KM, Munshi I, Nayduch D, Sandhu R, Yelon JA; American College of Critical Care Medicine of the Society of Critical Care Medicine; Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Practice Management Workgroup: Clinical practice guideline: Red blood cell transfusion in adult trauma and critical care. Crit Care Med 2009;37: 3124 -57
- [19]19. Go ¨rlinger K, Dirkmann D, Weber CF, Rahe-Meyer N, Hanke AA: Algorithms for transfusion and coagulation management in massive haemorrhage. Ana ¨sth Intensivmed 2011; 52: 145-59
- [27]27. Snyder-Ramos SA, Mo ¨hnle P, Weng YS, Bo ¨ttiger BW, Kulier A, Levin J, Mangano DT; Investigators of the Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia; MCSPI Research Group: The ongoing variability in blood transfusion practices in cardiac surgery. Transfusion 2008; 48:1284 -99
- [32]32. Kozek-Langenecker SA: Perioperative coagulation monitor- ing. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2010; 24:27-40
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rossaint, R., Bouillon, B., Černý, V., Coats, T., Duranteau, J., Fernández‐Mondejar, E., Filipescu, D. C., Hunt, B. J., Komadina, R., Nardi, G., et al. (2016) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1265-x · Cited by 1,495
Spahn, D. R., Bouillon, B., Černý, V., Duranteau, J., Filipescu, D. C., Hunt, B. J., Komadina, R., Maegele, M., Nardi, G., Riddez, L., et al. (2019) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2347-3 · Cited by 1,323
Halvorsen, S., Mehilli, J., Cassese, S., Hall, T. S., Abdelhamid, M., Barbato, E., Hert, S. G. D., de Laval, I., Geisler, T., Hinterbuchner, L., et al. (2022) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac270 · Cited by 1,287
Self-citationManagement of severe perioperative bleeding
Kozek‐Langenecker, S. A., Afshari, A., Albaladejo, P., Aldecoa, C., ROBERTIS, E. D., Filipescu, D. C., Fries, D. R., Görlinger, K., Haas, T., Imberger, G. L., et al. (2013) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0b013e32835f4d5b · Cited by 911
Self-citationManagement of severe perioperative bleeding
Kozek‐Langenecker, S. A., Ahmed, A. B., Afshari, A., Albaladejo, P., Aldecoa, C., Barauskas, G., ROBERTIS, E. D., Faraoni, D., Filipescu, D. C., Fries, D. R., et al. (2017) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000630 · Cited by 817
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Weber, C. F., Görlinger, K., Meininger, D., Herrmann, E., Bingold, T., Moritz, A., Cohn, L. H., & Zacharowski, K.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital Frankfurt (DE)
- Essen University Hospital (DE)
- Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2012-09-01
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 531-547
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2033421420
- Cited by
- 625
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 46.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Anesthesiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood transfusion and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
- Keywords
- point-of-care testing, hemostatic therapy, cardiac surgery, coagulopathy, thromboelastometry, impedance aggregometry, red blood cell transfusion, postoperative blood loss, heparin reversal, blood product transfusion, postoperative bleeding
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Cardiopulmonary Bypass, Female, Fibrinogen, Cardiac Surgical Procedures, Hemostatics, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Factor VIIa, Erythrocyte Transfusion, Point-of-Care Systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-02, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-02 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
