Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is a common surgical complication and a frequently used outcome in randomized trials; however, its definition and analysis are not straightforward and have important implications for trial design, statistical power and interpretation of treatment effect. This review aimed to summarize how perioperative bleeding was defined in randomized controlled trials, along with sample size considerations, analytic approaches, and interpretation practices. METHODS: On April 9th, 2025, we systematically searched the CENTRAL database for randomized trials in surgical settings published after January 2024 that evaluated perioperative bleeding as the primary outcome. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Where appropriate, we categorized findings into conceptually similar domains and applied descriptive analysis. RESULTS: We included 115 trials reporting 116 primary bleeding outcomes and identified 36 unique definitions, with assessment periods ranging from intraoperative to more than 30 days postoperatively. Volumetric or gravimetric measures were most common (n = 46 [39.6%]), whereas patient-reported events (n = 5 [4.3%]) and clinical management of blood loss (n = 4 [3.4%]) were rare. Most trials reported a sample size calculation based on the primary outcome (n = 90 [78.3%]), but over one-third lacked effect-size justification (n = 34 [37.8%]). Analyses were predominantly parametric (n = 69 [59.5%]), while a few adjusted for baseline covariates (n = 18 [15.6%]). Interpretation in superiority trials relied mainly on statistical significance (n = 49 [47.6%]). Among noninferiority trials, noninferiority was often claimed without prespecified margins (n = 4 [33.3%]). CONCLUSION: Perioperative bleeding outcomes are defined and analyzed with high inconsistency. Standardized outcome definitions and reporting practices are needed in this field to improve trial comparability and clinical relevance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Perioperative Medicine
Published
2026-07-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-026-00715-z
Primary Topic
Hemostasis and retained surgical items
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Yasaman Mohammadi Kamalabadi, Pavel S Roshanov, Guangyong Zou, Natalie Zitoun et al.
Perioperative Medicine
Hemostasis and retained surgical items
article

Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Yasaman Mohammadi Kamalabadi, Pavel S Roshanov, Guangyong Zou, Natalie Zitoun, Justyna Bartoszko, Maha El-Shimy
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is a common surgical complication and a frequently used outcome in randomized trials; however, its definition and analysis are not straightforward and have important implications for trial design, statistical power and interpretation of treatment effect. This review aimed to summarize how perioperative bleeding was defined in randomized controlled trials, along with sample size considerations, analytic approaches, and interpretation practices. METHODS: On April 9th, 2025, we systematically searched the CENTRAL database for randomized trials in surgical settings published after January 2024 that evaluated perioperative bleeding as the primary outcome. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Where appropriate, we categorized findings into conceptually similar domains and applied descriptive analysis. RESULTS: We included 115 trials reporting 116 primary bleeding outcomes and identified 36 unique definitions, with assessment periods ranging from intraoperative to more than 30 days postoperatively. Volumetric or gravimetric measures were most common (n = 46 [39.6%]), whereas patient-reported events (n = 5 [4.3%]) and clinical management of blood loss (n = 4 [3.4%]) were rare. Most trials reported a sample size calculation based on the primary outcome (n = 90 [78.3%]), but over one-third lacked effect-size justification (n = 34 [37.8%]). Analyses were predominantly parametric (n = 69 [59.5%]), while a few adjusted for baseline covariates (n = 18 [15.6%]). Interpretation in superiority trials relied mainly on statistical significance (n = 49 [47.6%]). Among noninferiority trials, noninferiority was often claimed without prespecified margins (n = 4 [33.3%]). CONCLUSION: Perioperative bleeding outcomes are defined and analyzed with high inconsistency. Standardized outcome definitions and reporting practices are needed in this field to improve trial comparability and clinical relevance.

Perioperative Medicine
Western University (CA), University Health Network (CA), London Health Sciences Centre (CA), Women's College Hospital (CA), Population Health Research Institute (CA), Victoria Hospital (CA), Sinai Health System (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Hemostasis and retained surgical items
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.