↓ Skip to main content

Thromboelastography (TEG) or thromboelastometry (ROTEM) to monitor haemostatic treatment versus usual care in adults or children with bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Thromboelastography (TEG) or thromboelastometry (ROTEM) to monitor haemostatic treatment versus usual care in adults or children with bleeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007871.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Wikkelsø, Jørn Wetterslev, Ann Merete Møller, Arash Afshari

Abstract

Severe bleeding and coagulopathy are serious clinical conditions that are associated with high mortality. Thromboelastography (TEG) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are increasingly used to guide transfusion strategy but their roles remain disputed. This review was first published in 2011 and updated in January 2016. We assessed the benefits and harms of thromboelastography (TEG)-guided or thromboelastometry (ROTEM)-guided transfusion in adults and children with bleeding. We looked at various outcomes, such as overall mortality and bleeding events, conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examined the role of bias, and applied trial sequential analyses (TSAs) to examine the amount of evidence gathered so far. In this updated review we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; Science Citation Index Expanded; International Web of Science; CINAHL; LILACS; and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (up to 5 January 2016). We contacted trial authors, authors of previous reviews, and manufacturers in the field. The original search was run in October 2010. We included all RCTs, irrespective of blinding or language, that compared transfusion guided by TEG or ROTEM to transfusion guided by clinical judgement, guided by standard laboratory tests, or a combination. We also included interventional algorithms including both TEG or ROTEM in combination with standard laboratory tests or other devices. The primary analysis included trials on TEG or ROTEM versus any comparator. Two review authors independently abstracted data; we resolved any disagreements by discussion. We presented pooled estimates of the intervention effects on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Due to skewed data, meta-analysis was not provided for continuous outcome data. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect based on the presence of coagulopathy of a TEG- or ROTEM-guided algorithm, and in adults and children on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and the risk of random error through TSA. We included eight new studies (617 participants) in this updated review. In total we included 17 studies (1493 participants). A total of 15 trials provided data for the meta-analyses. We judged only two trials as low risk of bias. The majority of studies included participants undergoing cardiac surgery.We found six ongoing trials but were unable to retrieve any data from them. Compared with transfusion guided by any method, TEG or ROTEM seemed to reduce overall mortality (7.4% versus 3.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95; I(2) = 0%, 8 studies, 717 participants, low quality of evidence) but only eight trials provided data on mortality, and two were zero event trials. Our analyses demonstrated a statistically significant effect of TEG or ROTEM compared to any comparison on the proportion of participants transfused with pooled red blood cells (PRBCs) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; I(2) = 0%, 10 studies, 832 participants, low quality of evidence), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96; I(2) = 86%, 8 studies, 761 participants, low quality of evidence), platelets (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%, 10 studies, 832 participants, low quality of evidence), and overall haemostatic transfusion with FFP or platelets (low quality of evidence). Meta-analyses also showed fewer participants with dialysis-dependent renal failure.We found no difference in the proportion needing surgical reinterventions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%, 9 studies, 887 participants, low quality of evidence) and excessive bleeding events or massive transfusion (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; I(2) = 34%, 2 studies, 280 participants, low quality of evidence). The planned subgroup analyses failed to show any significant differences.We graded the quality of evidence as low based on the high risk of bias in the studies, large heterogeneity, low number of events, imprecision, and indirectness. TSA indicates that only 54% of required information size has been reached so far in regards to mortality, while there may be evidence of benefit for transfusion outcomes. Overall, evaluated outcomes were consistent with a benefit in favour of a TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion in bleeding patients. There is growing evidence that application of TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion strategies may reduce the need for blood products, and improve morbidity in patients with bleeding. However, these results are primarily based on trials of elective cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass, and the level of evidence remains low. Further evaluation of TEG- or ROTEM-guided transfusion in acute settings and other patient categories in low risk of bias studies is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 212 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 17%
Other 31 14%
Unspecified 30 14%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Other 77 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 66%
Unspecified 40 18%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 14 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#839,583
of 12,347,469 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,267
of 8,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,463
of 265,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#47
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,347,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.