↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review on the rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM®) values for the diagnosis of coagulopathy, prediction and guidance of blood transfusion and prediction of mortality in trauma patients

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
A systematic review on the rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM®) values for the diagnosis of coagulopathy, prediction and guidance of blood transfusion and prediction of mortality in trauma patients
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0308-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Precilla V. Veigas, Jeannie Callum, Sandro Rizoli, Bartolomeu Nascimento, Luis Teodoro da Luz

Abstract

Viscoelastic assays have been promoted as an improvement over traditional coagulation tests in the management of trauma patients. Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) has been used to diagnose coagulopathy and guide hemostatic therapy in trauma. This systematic review of clinical studies in trauma investigates the ROTEM® parameters thresholds used for the diagnosing coagulopathy, predicting and guiding transfusion and predicting mortality. Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. We included studies without restricting year of publication, language or geographic location. Original studies reporting the thresholds of ROTEM® parameters in the diagnosis or management of coagulopathy in trauma patients were included. Data on patient demographics, measures of coagulopathy, transfusion and mortality were extracted. We reported our findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed using Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tools, respectively. A total of 13 observational studies involving 2835 adult trauma patients met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies were prospective and four were retrospective. There were no randomized controlled trials. The quality of the included studies was moderate (mean NOS 5.92, standard deviation 0.26). Using QUADAS-2, only 1 study (7.6 %) had low risk of bias in all domains, and 9 studies (69.2 %) had low risk of applicability concerns. Outcomes from 13 studies were grouped into three categories: diagnosis of coagulopathy (n = 10), prediction of massive transfusion or transfusion guidance (n = 6) and prediction of mortality (n = 6). Overall, specific ROTEM® parameters measured (clot amplitude and lysis) in the extrinsically activated test (EXTEM) and the fibrin-based extrinsically activated test (FIBTEM) were consistently associated with the diagnosis of coagulopathy, increased risk of bleeding and massive transfusion, and prediction of mortality. Presence of hyperfibrinolysis by ROTEM® was associated with increased mortality. Most of the evidence indicates that abnormal EXTEM and FIBTEM clot amplitude (CA5, CA10) or maximal clot firmness (MCF) diagnose coagulopathy, and predict blood transfusion and mortality. The presence of fibrinolysis (abnormal lysis index [LI30] or maximum lysis [ML]) was also associated with mortality. ROTEM® thus, may be of value in the early management of trauma patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 184 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 28 15%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Postgraduate 21 11%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 38 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 48 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,738,192
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#457
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,518
of 321,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#10
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 321,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 70% of its contemporaries.