Currently submitted to: JMIR Research Protocols
Date Submitted: Mar 10, 2024
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 11, 2024 - May 6, 2024
(currently open for review)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Protocol: Methodology for measuring intraoperative blood loss - a scoping review
ABSTRACT
Background:
At present, there is no standardized method for measuring intraoperative blood loss. Rather, the current data on existing methods is very broad and opaque. In many cases, blood loss during surgery is estimated visually by the surgeon. However, it is known that this type of method is very prone to error. Accordingly, better standardized methods are needed.
Objective:
We are planning to conduct a scoping review with the aim of presenting the currently available methods for measuring intraoperative blood loss. This should help to capture the current status and map and summarize the available evidence for measuring blood loss to identify any gaps.
Methods:
Our review will be based on the PRISMA guidelines. [1] We will search the Pubmed (Medline) and Cochrane Library databases. Studies published in the period from 2012 (01.01.2012) up to and including the end of 2023 (31.12.2023) will be included. Only publications in German and English will be considered. All clinical studies that define "blood loss" as a target criterion or as a primary or secondary endpoint will be included as study types.
Results:
The included studies will be listed in a database and the following basic data will be extracted: Title, year of publication, country, language, study type, surgical specialty, type of procedure. The number of participants will be listed and the distribution of the participants will be documented in terms of gender and age. The following outcomes will be extracted: measurement method, "blood loss" as primary or secondary outcome.
Conclusions:
Currently, there is no comparable review, resulting in ambiguous data regarding the prevailing measurement methods. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview - from methods of measurement to various formulas for calculating losses - and to establish a status quo. This could then serve as a foundation for further studies.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.