↓ Skip to main content

Early identification of patients requiring massive transfusion, embolization, or hemostatic surgery for traumatic hemorrhage: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Early identification of patients requiring massive transfusion, embolization, or hemostatic surgery for traumatic hemorrhage: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0480-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandre Tran, Maher Matar, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Jacinthe Lampron, Monica Taljaard, Christian Vaillancourt

Abstract

Hemorrhage is a major cause of early mortality following a traumatic injury. The progression and consequences of significant blood loss occur quickly as death from hemorrhagic shock or exsanguination often occurs within the first few hours. The mainstay of treatment therefore involves early identification of patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock in order to provide blood products and control of the bleeding source if necessary. The intended scope of this review is to identify and assess combinations of predictors informing therapeutic decision-making for clinicians during the initial trauma assessment. The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify and critically assess any existing multivariable models predicting significant traumatic hemorrhage that requires intervention, defined as a composite outcome comprising massive transfusion, surgery for hemostasis, or angiography with embolization for the purpose of external validation or updating in other study populations. If no suitable existing multivariable models are identified, the secondary objective is to identify candidate predictors to inform the development of a new prediction rule. We will search the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases for all randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies developing or validating predictors of intervention for traumatic hemorrhage in adult patients 16 years of age or older. Eligible predictors must be available to the clinician during the first hour of trauma resuscitation and may be clinical, lab-based, or imaging-based. Outcomes of interest include the need for surgical intervention, angiographic embolization, or massive transfusion within the first 24 h. Data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers. Items for extraction will be based on the CHARMS checklist. We will evaluate any existing models for relevance, quality, and the potential for external validation and updating in other populations. Relevance will be described in terms of appropriateness of outcomes and predictors. Quality criteria will include variable selection strategies, adequacy of sample size, handling of missing data, validation techniques, and measures of model performance. This systematic review will describe the availability of multivariable prediction models and summarize evidence regarding predictors that can be used to identify the need for intervention in patients with traumatic hemorrhage. PROSPERO CRD42017054589.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 15 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,038,951
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,377
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,577
of 310,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 310,045 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.