The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Paucity of studies to support that abnormal coagulation test results predict bleeding in the setting of invasive procedures: an evidence‐based review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature was systematically reviewed to determine whether a prolonged prothrombin time or elevated international normalized ratio predicts bleeding during invasive diagnostic procedures. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched through August 2004, with no language restriction, and reference lists were reviewed. For inclusion, articles must have reported on bleeding in more than five patients with abnormal test results undergoing diagnostic procedures. RESULTS: One trial and 24 observational studies were included. In 2 studies of bronchoscopy, the bleeding rates were similar among those with normal and abnormal tests, with wide confidence intervals (CIs) around the risk differences. During central vein cannulation (3 studies), bleeding rates among those with abnormal tests was unlikely to exceed 2.3 percent. The largest of 3 studies of arteriography found equivalent bleeding rates in patients with and without abnormal tests (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, −3% to 2%). In the 3 studies of liver biopsy with plugging, bleeding rates were 0, 4, and 5 percent with the upper bounds of the CI as high as 17 percent. In the largest study of transjugular biopsy, the bleeding rate was 1.5 percent (95% CI, 0.3%‐4%) in patients with abnormal tests. The highest bleeding rate in the 3 studies of percutaneous liver biopsy was 5.3 percent (95% CI, 1%‐13%), similar to the rate in patients with normal test results. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that abnormal test results predict bleeding. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to provide stronger evidence for clinical decision making regarding preprocedure transfusion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
Berlin, J. A. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)62352-5 · Cited by 478
Cited by
Rebalanced hemostasis in patients with liver disease: evidence and clinical consequences
Lisman, T., & Porte, R. J. (2010) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2010-02-261891 · Cited by 667
Guidelines on transfusion for fetuses, neonates and older children
New, H. V., Berryman, J., Bolton‐Maggs, P. H. B., Cantwell, C., Chalmers, E. A., Davies, T., Gottstein, R., Kelleher, A., Kumar, S., Morley, S. L., et al. (2016) · British Journal of Haematology · doi:10.1111/bjh.14233 · Cited by 359
Abdel‐Wahab, O. I., Healy, B., & Dzik, W. H. (2006) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2006.00891.x · Cited by 337
Self-citationCoagulation in liver disease: A guide for the clinician
Northup, P. G., & Caldwell, S. H. (2013) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2013.02.026 · Cited by 268
The use of fresh‐frozen plasma in England: high levels of inappropriate use in adults and children
Stanworth, S. J., Grant‐Casey, J., Lowe, D., Laffan, M., New, H., Murphy, M. F., & Allard, S. (2011) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2010.02798.x · Cited by 237
Metadata
- Authors
- Segal, J. B., Dzik, W. H., & Transfusion Medicine/Hemostasis Clinical Trials Network
- Venue
- Transfusion
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-07-22
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1413-1425
- ISSN
- 0041-1132 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2995
- OpenAlex
- W2146292166
- Cited by
- 663
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Paucity of studies to support that abnormal coagulation test results predict bleeding in the setting of invasive procedures: an evidence‐based review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.00546.x
- The paper
- Segal, J. B., Dzik, W. H., & Transfusion Medicine/Hemostasis Clinical Trials Network. (2005). Paucity of studies to support that abnormal coagulation test results predict bleeding in the setting of invasive procedures: an evidence‐based review. Transfusion. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.00546.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.