New and more effective application assays for hemostatic disorder assessment: A systematic review

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Electronic Journal of General Medicine Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.29333/ejgm/13570
Faisal M Al-Zahrani
{"title":"New and more effective application assays for hemostatic disorder assessment: A systematic review","authors":"Faisal M Al-Zahrani","doi":"10.29333/ejgm/13570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Hemostasis research lacked novel platform assays for hemostatic disorder diagnosis. The current review study’s goal is to compare various assays for evaluating the novel hemostatic techniques used in the diagnosis of coagulation disturbances and to highlight each method’s strongest and weakest points.\nMethods: The PRISMA guidelines and the recommendations for observational studies in epidemiology were both followed in the current systematic review. The PRISMA-compliant electronic databases (PubMed), a novel platform for evaluating hemostasis, were searched using the keywords. The electronic databases (PubMed), a cutting-edge platform to assess hemostasis, were searched using the keywords. Articles published between December 2016 and December 2021 were only included in searches; original articles were written in English. In order to assess hemostasis studies, we gathered bibliographies of abstracts that were published on the new and more effective application assays for assessments of hemostasis disorders.\nResults: Following the removal of duplicates, articles were determined by examining the titles and abstracts. Disagreements were resolved through consensus and the application of novel hemostatic analysis methods. Then independently reviewed the relevant studies of the recognized records (n=503), excluding duplicates (n=9) and irrelevant studies (n=249). The remaining 254 studies were read in their entirety, the data from the seven included studies had been extracted.\nConclusions: When expressed as an anticoagulant for the in vivo assessment of on the complement system, nanotechnology-based study was more effective in some laboratory tests, and flow cytometer evaluation could be a promising platform approach for use in hemostasis management.","PeriodicalId":44930,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/13570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hemostasis research lacked novel platform assays for hemostatic disorder diagnosis. The current review study’s goal is to compare various assays for evaluating the novel hemostatic techniques used in the diagnosis of coagulation disturbances and to highlight each method’s strongest and weakest points. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines and the recommendations for observational studies in epidemiology were both followed in the current systematic review. The PRISMA-compliant electronic databases (PubMed), a novel platform for evaluating hemostasis, were searched using the keywords. The electronic databases (PubMed), a cutting-edge platform to assess hemostasis, were searched using the keywords. Articles published between December 2016 and December 2021 were only included in searches; original articles were written in English. In order to assess hemostasis studies, we gathered bibliographies of abstracts that were published on the new and more effective application assays for assessments of hemostasis disorders. Results: Following the removal of duplicates, articles were determined by examining the titles and abstracts. Disagreements were resolved through consensus and the application of novel hemostatic analysis methods. Then independently reviewed the relevant studies of the recognized records (n=503), excluding duplicates (n=9) and irrelevant studies (n=249). The remaining 254 studies were read in their entirety, the data from the seven included studies had been extracted. Conclusions: When expressed as an anticoagulant for the in vivo assessment of on the complement system, nanotechnology-based study was more effective in some laboratory tests, and flow cytometer evaluation could be a promising platform approach for use in hemostasis management.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
止血障碍评估中新的更有效的应用方法:系统综述
背景:止血研究缺乏新的止血障碍诊断平台。目前的综述研究的目标是比较各种检测方法,以评估用于诊断凝血障碍的新型止血技术,并强调每种方法的最强点和最弱点。方法:在当前的系统综述中,遵循PRISMA指南和流行病学观察性研究的建议。使用关键词搜索符合PRISMA的电子数据库(PubMed),这是一个评估止血的新平台。使用关键词搜索电子数据库(PubMed),这是一个评估止血的尖端平台。2016年12月至2021年12月期间发表的文章仅包含在搜索中;最初的文章是用英语写的。为了评估止血研究,我们收集了发表在新的、更有效的止血疾病评估应用分析中的摘要目录。结果:去除重复后,通过检查标题和摘要来确定文章。通过达成共识和应用新型止血分析方法解决了分歧。然后独立审查已识别记录的相关研究(n=503),不包括重复研究(n=9)和无关研究(n=249)。对其余254项研究进行了全面阅读,并提取了7项纳入研究的数据。结论:当作为一种抗凝剂用于补体系统的体内评估时,基于纳米技术的研究在一些实验室测试中更有效,流式细胞仪评估可能是一种很有前途的止血管理平台方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of General Medicine
Electronic Journal of General Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
79
期刊最新文献
Corrected QT interval and QT dispersion in temporal lobe epilepsy in children and adolescent Primary pulmonary enteric adenocarcinoma: A case report and review of literature Risk factors for postpartum stress urinary incontinence: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis Long-term humoral and cellular responses elicited by Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine in hemodialysis patients: A prospective cohort study Investigating the value of medication management review for asthma patients: A randomized controlled study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1