Introduction The CRASH-2 trial demonstrated that tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced mortality with no increase in adverse events in severely injured adults. TXA has since been widely used in injured adults worldwide. Our objective was to estimate mortality and adverse events in adults with trauma receiving TXA in studies published after the CRASH-2 trial. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MicroMedex, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that included injured adults who received TXA and reported mortality and/or adverse events. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses using random effects models to estimate the incidence of mortality at 28 or 30 days and in-hospital thrombotic events. Results We included 19 studies and 13 studies in the systematic review and meta-analyses, respectively. The pooled incidence of mortality at 28 or 30 days (five studies, 1538 patients) was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.8–12.4%) (vs 14.5% [95% CI, 13.9–15.2%] in the CRASH-2 trial), and the pooled incidence of in-hospital thrombotic events (nine studies, 1656 patients) was 5.9% (95% CI, 3.3–8.5%) (vs 2.0% [95% CI, 1.8–2.3%] in the CRASH-2 trial). Conclusion Compared to the CRASH-2 trial, adult trauma patients receiving TXA identified in our systematic review had a lower incidence of mortality at 28 or 30 days, but a higher incidence of in-hospital thrombotic events. Our findings neither support nor refute the findings of the CRASH-2 trial but suggest that incidence rates in adults with trauma in settings outside of the CRASH-2 trial may be different than those observed in the CRASH-2 trial.
After reading the article, participants should be able to discuss one hospital's results using TXA for traumatic hemorrhage. Activity Disclosures This activity received no commercial support. CME Editor Corey Heitz discloses no relevant financial relationships. This activity underwent peer review in line with standards of editorial integrity and publication ethics. Conflicts of interest have been identified and resolved in accordance with John Wiley and Sons, Inc.'s Policy on Activity Disclosure and Conflict of Interest.
Study Objective The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical signs, symptoms, laboratory investigations, and imaging modalities commonly used in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. Methods We conducted this systematic review and meta‐analysis according to an a priori, registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42017055153). A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2, calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), and applied a random‐effects model for meta‐analysis. Results Among 7641 references screened, 76 were included in the systematic review and 53 were included in the meta‐analyis. The overall pooled prevalence for ureteral stones was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%–67%). No individual demographic feature, symptom, or sign when present had an LR+ ≥2.0 for identifying ureterolithiasis. A (Sex, Timing and Origin of pain, race, presence or absence of Nausea, and Erythrocytes) STONE score ≥10 increased (sensitivity 0.49, specificity 0.91, LR 5.3 [95% CI, 4.1–6.7]) and a STONE score <6 reduced the likelihood of ureteral stones (sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.43, LR 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10–0.22]). Standard‐dose (sensitivity 0.96, specificity 0.94, LR+ 16 [95% CI, 11–23], LR− 0.05 [95% CI, 0.03–0.07]) and low‐dose computed tomography (CT) scanning (sensitivity 0.93, specificity 0.94, LR+ 17 [95% CI, 8.8–31], LR− 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03–0.19]) were the most useful imaging techniques for identifying patients with or without ureteral stones. Conclusions Individual signs, symptoms, or the presence of microscopic hematuria do not substantially impact the likelihood of ureteral stones in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. The STONE score at high and low thresholds and a modified STONE score at a high threshold may sufficiently guide physicians’ decisions to obtain imaging. Low‐dose, non‐contrast CT imaging provides superior diagnostic accuracy compared with all other imaging index tests that are comparable with standard CT imaging. Limitations of the evidence include methodological shortcomings and considerable heterogeneity of the included studies.
A previous study demonstrated that the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, a health-related quality-of-life instrument consisting of physical and psychosocial domain scores, reliably differentiates between children with varying severities of traumatic brain injuries (N = 729) 3, 12, and 24 mos after injury. However, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory physical domain score alone may simplify evaluation outcomes in physical rehabilitation and clinical research when comparing different trauma interventions. Therefore, we performed a secondary analysis to evaluate and compare the discriminative capacity of traumatic brain injury severity for changes in the overall Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory or the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory physical domain score alone. We used linear mixed models to assess the change of outcome scores from baseline compared with arm-injury controls. Somers’ D was calculated to compare discriminatory capacity with injury severity as a predictor of change in Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory outcome scores. We found that traumatic brain injury severity in children can be differentiated by the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory physical domain score alone. However, at all follow-up time points, traumatic brain injury severity had higher discriminatory capacity for changes in the overall Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory. Our results suggest that the overall Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory should be used preferentially in children with traumatic brain injuries, although further investigation of the physical domain is warranted in conditions where physical injuries may predominate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.