Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 663

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

Segal, Jodi B., Dzik, Walter H., Transfusion Medicine/Hemostasis Clinical Trials Network·2005·Transfusion

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.00546.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 663

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.