Dataset Information

Emergency administration of fibrinogen concentrate for hemorrhage: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The occurrence of massive hemorrhages in various emergency situations increases the need for blood transfusions and the risk of mortality. Use of fibrinogen concentrate (FC) may increase plasma fibrinogen levels more rapidly than the use of fresh-frozen product or cryoprecipitate. However, thus far, the efficacy of FC in significantly improving the risk of mortality and significantly reducing transfusion requirements has not been effectively demonstrated in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of FC for hemorrhages in emergency situations. We will include controlled trials, but will exclude randomized controlled trials in elective surgeries. We will include patients with hemorrhages in emergency situations. Intervention will be emergency supplementation of FC. The control group will be administered with ordinal transfusion or placebo. The primary outcome of the study is in-hospital mortality.We will search in electronic databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstract, retrieve the full text of the selected articles, and extract the essential data. We will apply uniform criteria for evaluating the risk of bias associated with individual randomized controlled trial based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Values of the risk ratio will be expressed as a point estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data of continuous variables will be expressed as the mean difference along with their 95% CIs and P values. We will assess the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic review will provide physicians with updated information on the efficacy and safety of using FC for hemorrhage in emergency settings. Approval from the ethics board and patient consent were not required in our study.This study protocol has been funded through a protocol registry. The registry number is UMIN000041598.

SUBMITTER: Itagaki Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7969309 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Emergency administration of fibrinogen concentrate for hemorrhage: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Itagaki Yuki Y Hayakawa Mineji M Takahashi Yuki Y Yamakawa Kazuma K

Medicine 20210301 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>The occurrence of massive hemorrhages in various emergency situations increases the need for blood transfusions and the risk of mortality. Use of fibrinogen concentrate (FC) may increase plasma fibrinogen levels more rapidly than the use of fresh-frozen product or cryoprecipitate. However, thus far, the efficacy of FC in significantly improving the risk of mortality and significantly reducing transfusion requirements has not been effectively demonstrated in several systemati ...[more]

PMID: 33725904

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe occurrence of massive haemorrhages in various emergency situations increases the need for blood transfusions and increases the risk of mortality. Fibrinogen concentrate (FC) use may increase plasma fibrinogen levels more rapidly than fresh-frozen product or cryoprecipitate use. Previous several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not effectively demonstrated FC efficacy in significantly improving the risk of mortality and reducing transfusion requirements. In this study, we investigated the use of FC for haemorrhages in emergency situations.Methods and analysisIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included controlled trials, but excluded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in elective surgeries. The study population consisted of patients with haemorrhages in emergency situations, and the intervention was emergency supplementation of FC. The control group was administered with ordinal transfusion or placebo. The primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and the amount of transfusion and thrombotic events, respectively. The electronic databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.ResultsNine RCTs in the qualitative synthesis with a total of 701 patients were included. Results showed a slight increase in in-hospital mortality with FC treatment (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.64-2.39, p = 0.52) with very low certainty of the evidence. There was no reduction in the use of red blood cells (RBC) transfusion in the first 24 h after admission with FC treatment (mean difference [MD] 0.0 Unit in the FC group, 95% CI - 0.99-0.98, p = 0.99) with very low certainty of the evidence. However, the use of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion significantly increased in the first 24 h after admission with FC treatment (MD 2.61 Unit higher in the FC group, 95% CI 0.07-5.16, p = 0.04). The occurrence of thrombotic events did not significantly differ with FC treatment.ConclusionsThe present study indicates that the use of FC may result in a slight increase in in-hospital mortality. While FC did not appear to reduce the use of RBC transfusion, it likely increased the use of FFP transfusion and may result in a large increase in platelet concentrate transfusion. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the unbalanced severity in the patient population, high heterogeneity, and risk of bias.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Perioperative benzodiazepines are used because of their anxiolytic, sedative and amnestic effects. Evidence has demonstrated an association of benzodiazepines with adverse neuropsychiatric effects. Nonetheless, because of their potential benefits, perioperative benzodiazepines continue to be used routinely. We seek to evaluate the body of evidence of the risks and benefits of benzodiazepine use during the perioperative period. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to March 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating the administration of benzodiazepine medications as compared with all other medications (or nothing) in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude studies assessing the use of benzodiazepines for procedural sedation or day surgery. We will examine the impact of giving these medications before, during and after surgery. Outcomes of interest include the incidence of delirium, duration of delirium, postprocedure cognitive change, the incidence of intraoperative awareness, patient satisfaction/quality of life/quality of recovery, length-of-stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality.Reviewers will screen references and assess eligibility using predefined criteria independently and in duplicate. Two reviewers will independently collect data using prepiloted forms. We will present results separately for RCTs and observational studies. We will pool data using a random effect model and present results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We will pool adjusted ORs for observational studies. We will assess risk of bias for individual studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs. For observational studies, we will use tools designed by the Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation group. Quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This systematic review involves no patient contact and no interaction with healthcare providers or systems. As such, we did not seek ethics board approval. We will disseminate the findings of our systematic review through the presentation at peer-reviewed conferences and by seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019128144.

Project description:IntroductionScabies is recognised as a neglected tropical disease, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable populations around the world. Impetigo often occurs secondarily to scabies. Several studies have explored mass drug administration (MDA) programmes, with some showing positive outcomes-but a systematic evaluation of such studies is yet to be reported. The main aim of this systematic review is to generate comprehensive evidence on the effect and feasibility of MDA programmes in reducing the burden of scabies and impetigo.Methods and analysisA systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. Electronic databases to be searched will include CINAHL EBSCOhost, Medline Ovid, ProQuest, Science Direct, PubMed and SCOPUS. In addition, grey literature will be explored via the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, Informit, OaIster database and WHO. No language restrictions will be applied. All treatment studies following an MDA protocol, including randomised/quasi-controlled trials, and prospective before-after interventional studies, will be considered. The main outcome is the change in prevalence of scabies and impetigo The Cochrane collaboration risk of bias assessment tool will be used for assessing the methodological quality of studies. A random-effect restricted maximum likelihood meta-analysis will be performed to generate pooled effect (OR) using STATA V.16. Appropriate statistical tests will be carried out to quantify heterogeneity between studies and publication bias.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since data will be extracted from published works. The findings will be communicated to the scientific community through a peer-reviewed journal publication. This systematic review will present an evidence on the effect of MDA interventions on scabies and impetigo, which is instrumental to obtain a clear understanding of the treatments widely used in these programmes.Prospero registration numberCRD42020169544.

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic tools for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients are potentially useful for ascertaining prognosis and recommended in guidelines to facilitate streamline assessment and communication between providers. In this systematic review with meta-analysis we identified and characterized all existing prognostic tools for this population, performed a methodological evaluation of the conducting and reporting of such studies and compared different methods of prognostic tool derivation in terms of discrimination for mortality and functional outcome prediction.MethodsPubMed, ISI, Scopus and CENTRAL were searched up to 15th September 2016, with additional studies identified using reference check. Two reviewers independently extracted data regarding the population studied, process of tool derivation, included predictors and discrimination (c statistic) using a predesignated spreadsheet based in the CHARMS checklist. Disagreements were solved by consensus. C statistics were pooled using robust variance estimation and meta-regression was applied for group comparisons using random effect models.ResultsFifty nine studies were retrieved, including 48,133 patients and reporting on the derivation of 72 prognostic tools. Data on discrimination (c statistic) was available for 53 tools, 38 focusing on mortality and 15 focusing on functional outcome. Discrimination was high for both outcomes, with a pooled c statistic of 0.88 for mortality and 0.87 for functional outcome. Forty three tools were regression based and nine tools were derived using machine learning algorithms, with no differences found between the two methods in terms of discrimination (p = 0.490). Several methodological issues however were identified, relating to handling of missing data, low number of events per variable, insufficient length of follow-up, absence of blinding, infrequent use of internal validation, and underreporting of important model performance measures.ConclusionsPrognostic tools for ICH discriminated well for mortality and functional outcome in derivation studies but methodological issues require confirmation of these findings in validation studies. Logistic regression based risk scores are particularly promising given their good performance and ease of application.

Dataset Information

Emergency administration of fibrinogen concentrate for hemorrhage: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Emergency administration of fibrinogen concentrate for hemorrhage: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets