
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070
PONE-D-24-02588
Research Article
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Metaanalysis
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Metaanalysis
Medicine and Health Sciences
Diagnostic Medicine
Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Transfusion Medicine
Blood Transfusion
Medicine and Health Sciences
Hematology
Transfusion Medicine
Blood Transfusion
Medicine and Health Sciences
Oncology
Cancers and Neoplasms
Neurological Tumors
Meningioma
Medicine and Health Sciences
Neurology
Neurological Tumors
Meningioma
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Assessment
Systematic Reviews
Medicine and Health Sciences
Oncology
Cancer Treatment
Surgical Oncology
Tumor Resection
Medicine and Health Sciences
Clinical Medicine
Clinical Oncology
Surgical Oncology
Tumor Resection
Medicine and Health Sciences
Oncology
Clinical Oncology
Surgical Oncology
Tumor Resection
Medicine and Health Sciences
Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
Surgical Resection
Tumor Resection
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Medical Risk Factors
Cancer Risk Factors
Medicine and Health Sciences
Oncology
Cancer Risk Factors
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Cohort Studies
Medicine and Health Sciences
Hematology
Blood Coagulation
Coagulation Disorders
Thrombosis
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Cardiovascular Diseases
Coagulation Disorders
Thrombosis
Medicine and Health Sciences
Cardiology
Cardiovascular Medicine
Cardiovascular Diseases
Coagulation Disorders
Thrombosis
Medicine and Health Sciences
Vascular Medicine
Thrombosis
Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid on blood loss and seizures in patients undergoing meningioma resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Tranexamic acid in meningioma resection
Liu Xiaoyuan Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 ‡
Liu Minying Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 ‡
Li Shu Data curation Methodology Project administration Supervision 1 2
Ren Yue Data curation 1
Zheng Maoyao Data curation 1
Zeng Min Supervision 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-2467
Peng Yuming Conceptualization Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Supervision Visualization Writing – review & editing 1 2 *
1 Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
2 Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America
Demetriades Andreas K. Editor
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

‡ XL and MS are contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

* E-mail: pengyuming@bjtth.org
4 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030807022 1 2024
16 7 2024
© 2024 Liu et al
2024
Liu et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction

It is unclear how tranexamic acid (TXA) affects blood loss and seizures in meningioma resections. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and tried to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TXA use for patients undergoing meningioma resections.

Methods

Regards to this systematic review and meta-analysis (registered with CRD42023416693), we searched PubMed, Embase (Ovid), EBSCO, and Cochrane central library up to and including Oct 2023. Patients undergoing meningioma resections treated with TXA and placebo or no treatment were eligible for this study. This would allow delineation of the impact of TXA on blood loss, postoperative seizure, and other complication incidences.

Results

Four prospective cohort studies with 781 patients (390 patients in the TXA group and 391 patients in the control group) were conducted via a systematic review and meta-analysis. The results suggested that the application of TXA for patients undergoing meningioma resections reduced mean blood loss of 252 mL with 95% confidence interval (CI) -469.26 to -34.67 (P = 0.02) and I2 of 94% but did not increase postoperative seizure (risk ratio: 1.08; 95%CI: 0.54 to 2.15; P = 0.84) and other complication rates.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the administration of TXA could reduce blood loss in patients undergoing intracerebral meningioma resection.

Registry information

The systematic review protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42023416693) on April 23, 2023.

Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission Z191100006619068 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-2467
Peng Yuming Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program PX2022018 Li Shu Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals’ Youth Program QML20230510 Li Shu This work was supported by the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubating Program (PX2022018), Beijing Municipal Administration of Seed Program (QMS20220518), and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission (Z191100006619068).The funding sponsor is neither involved in study design, collection, management, analysis, interpretation of data and report writing, nor the decision to submit the report for publication. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Meningiomas are one of the most common intracranial tumors and comprise approximately 36% of all intracranial neoplasms [1]. Although most meningiomas are benign [2], surgical removal is often accompanied by significant blood loss [3]. Excessive intraoperative blood loss may cause severe hemodynamic instability followed by cell salvage, large amounts of crystalloids, colloids, and allogeneic blood transfusion [4, 5].

TXA is a synthetical lysine analog [6–9] and plays its antifibrinolytic action by competitively inhibiting the binding of plasminogen to lysine residues on fibrin [6]. TXA could reduce blood loss and the need for transfusion in various surgical procedures, including trauma, orthopedics, otolaryngology, obstetrics, and cardiac surgery [10–17]. However, there remains a lack of consensus about the efficacy and safety of TXA administration in meningioma surgery.

Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, and tried to explore the potential evidence for the TXA’s efficacy and safety in intracranial meningioma surgery.

Methods

The systematic review protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42023416693) on April 23, 2023. The systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [18].

Selection criteria

We incorporated trials that exhibited the following characteristics: (1) trial types: clinical randomized controlled trials/original papers, (2) population: patients undergoing meningioma resection, (3) intervention: at any dose of intravenous TXA, (4) control: placebo or without TXA administration, and (5) outcomes: the primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss, and transfusion requirements, postoperative seizure, and other complication rates are included as the secondary outcomes.

Search strategy

To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis about the administration of TXA in intracranial meningioma surgery, we searched PubMed, Embase (Ovid), EBSCO, and Cochrane central library up to and including Oct 15, 2023. Randomized controlled trials in the English language comparing TXA with placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing meningioma resection were eligible for this study. The keywords were employed to search PubMed with following mode: ((tranexamic acid) OR (TXA) OR (Tranexamic acid)) AND (meningioma) AND ((randomized controlled trial) OR (randomized)). The same search strategy for PubMed was used to retrieve another two databases [19].

Data extraction

Articles identified by searching using the search terms were combined, and duplicates were removed. After the removal of duplicates, two independent reviewers (M L and S L) screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for eligibility using pre-defined criteria. Any discrepancies or disagreements among reviewers were resolved by discussion. If disagreements occur clarification would be sought from the senior authors (YM P). This was illustrated using a PRISMA flow chart. Two authors (M L and S L) collected the study characteristics from each selected study, including publication time, the population, number of patients, the dose of TXA administered, intraoperative blood loss in mL, transfusion requirements, postoperative seizure within hospitalization, postoperative complications and information to assess the risk of bias in the studies.

Quality assessments

M L and S L analyzed independently the risk of systematic errors (bias) of the trials incorporated in the meta-analysis based on the Cochrane Handbook, version 6.1. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess all the studies included. For randomized studies, the Risk of Bias version 2 (RoB 2) tool (version 22 August 2019) was used.

The assessment of bias risk was based on the following domains (1) randomization or non-randomization; (2) deviation from intended intervention; (3) missing outcome data; (4) measurement of the outcome; (5) selection of reported result.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss. The secondary outcomes were transfusion requirements and complication rate, including postoperative seizure, hematoma, and thrombosis events.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager Software 5 (Review Manager [RevMan] Version 5.4 Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). For the continuous data, such as blood loss, the mean ± standard deviation was employed to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied. Statistical heterogeneity among the trials was tested by inspection of forest plot and calculation of I2 statistics. A p-value < 0.1 and an I2 value > 50% were considered to be suggestive of statistical heterogeneity. We utilized a random-effect model regardless of the I2 caused by the meta-analysis application. All tests were two-tailed, and the result was presented as statistical significance when the P-value was less than 0.05.

Results

Literature search

Totally, we screened 326 abstracts, did a full-text review on 31 of them, and selected four trials enrolling 390 participants who received TXA usage and 391 participants with a placebo for the meta-analysis in this study (Fig 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.g001 Fig 1 PRISMA flowchart.

Description of selected studies

Table 1. summarizes the characteristics of selected trials. In three studies [3, 20, 21], TXA was administered through a loading dose of 20 mg/kg and a continuous infusion at 1 mg/kg/h until the completion of the surgery. Shu Li 2023 [19] involved a single dose of TXA at 20 mg/kg.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.t001 Table 1 Summary characteristics of included trials.

A	
Author, year	Total patients(n)	Design	Age (years)	Male(%)	TXA Dosing	Control	Duration of surgery(min)	Duration of anesthesia(min)	Blood loss(mL)	RBC transfusion(n)	FFP transfusion(n)	Cell saver(n)	
Hooda et al., 2017	60 (30/30)	Prospective cohort study	39.3±11.4 vs 41.6±11.2	46.67 vs 23.3	20 mg/kg 20 min followed by 1mg/kg/h	NS	346±124 vs	436±122 vs	830 vs 1124	13 vs 17	4 vs 4	7 vs 6	
359±129	447±125	
		
Rebai et al., 2021	91 (45/46)	Prospective cohort study	49.5±8.7 vs 48.2±9.1	51 vs 56	20 mg/kg 20 min followed by 1mg/kg/h	NS	220±31 vs	276±76 vs	283±71 vs	3 vs 4	0 vs 1	-	
215±26	302±86	576±76	
			
Ravi et al., 2021	30 (15/15)	Prospective cohort study	48.93±10.71 vs 52.0±13.18	33.3 vs 33.3	20 mg/kg followed by 1mg/kg/h	NS	195±29 vs	217±24 vs	616±393 vs	0 vs 6	-	-	
212±24	240±41	1150±417	
Shu Li et al., 2023	600 (300/300)	Prospective cohort study	53±8 vs 53±8	31.7 vs 25	Single dose of 20mg/kg	NS	210±54 vs 210±60	270±54 vs 270±84	431±540 vs 423±416	14 vs 17	17 vs 17	51 vs 60	
B	
Author, year	Total patients(n)	Design	Age (years)	Male(%)	TXA Dosing	Control	Postoperative seizure(n)	Hematoma(n)	Thrombosis events(n)	Re-exploration (n)	Antiepileptic drugs	
Hooda et al., 2017	60(30/30)	Prospective cohort study	39.3±11.4 vs 41.6±11.2	46.67 vs 23.3	20mg/kg 20min followed by 1mg/kg/h	NS	1 vs 2	3 vs 4	-	1 vs 3	None.	
Rebai et al., 2021	91(45/46)	Prospective cohort study	49.5±8.7 vs 48.2±9.1	51 vs 56	20mg/kg 20min followed by 1mg/kg/h	NS	2 vs 2	2 vs 6	0 vs 0	-	None.	
Ravi et al., 2021	30(15/15)	Prospective cohort study	48.93±10.71 vs 52.0±13.18	33.3 vs 33.3	20mg/kg followed by 1mg/kg/h	NS	-	0 vs 0	0 vs 0	-	None.	
Shu Li et al., 2023	600(300/300)	Prospective cohort study	53±8 vs 53±8	31.7 vs 25	Single dose of 20mg/kg	NS	13 vs 11	3 vs 5	26 vs 22	3 vs 6	Yes.*	
Data is presented as experimental group versus (vs) control group respectively. FFP: fresh frozen plasma; RBC: red blood cell; TXA: tranexamic acid.

*Postoperative antiepileptic treatment includes intravenous or oral administration of valproic acid, oxcarbazepine, carbamazepine, levetiracetam, and phenobarbital. Rescue intramuscular phenobarbital or continuous infusion of midazolam was administered when seizure fit attacks.

Risk of bias in individual trials

Overall, one trial [19] was regarded as low risk of bias. Four trials [3, 19–21] were deemed at low risk of bias for randomized process, deviation from intended interventions. One trial [19] was judged at low risk of bias for missing outcome data and selection of reported result. Supplementary material attached exhibits the risk of bias of the selected trials (S1 and S2 Figs).

Outcomes

Blood loss and blood transfusion requirements

A total of 781 patients from four studies [3, 19–21] were eligible for the primary outcome. Compared with the control group, the administration of TXA distinctly reduced intraoperative blood loss of 252 mL with 95% CI -469.26 to -34.67 (P = 0.02; Fig 2A). A pooled WMD for all patients was completed, and the data showed significant heterogeneity (I2 = 94%; Fig 2A).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.g002 Fig 2 a. Forest of RCTs following TXA for a. Blood loss, b. Number of patients requiring RBC transfusion, c. Volume of transfused RBC. b. Forest of RCTs following TXA for postoperative complications d. Seizure, e. Hematoma, f. Thrombosis events, g. Re-exploration.

Four studies [3, 19–21] with 781 patients reported the data on blood transfusion requirements. TXA did not reduce the probability of receiving red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (risk ratio: 0.75; 95%CI: 0.51 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; P = 0.15; Fig 2A). Furthermore, the use of TXA did not decrease the amount of transfused RBC in two studies [3, 19] (mean difference: -46.59 mL; 95%CI: -107.70 to -14.52; I2 = 56%; P = 0.14; Fig 2A).

Incidence of postoperative seizure and incidence of other postoperative complications

A total of 751 patients were included in three studies [3, 19, 21] relevant to this outcome. The use of TXA did not increase the risk of postoperative seizure compared with the control group (risk ratio: 1.08; 95%CI: 0.54 to 2.15; I2 = 0%; P = 0.84; Fig 2B). Only one study [19] mentioned the prophylactic administration of antiepileptic drugs postoperatively, while the other studies [3, 20, 21] did not specify this.

This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed other postoperative complications, including hematoma, thrombosis events, and re-exploration. Data on postoperative hematoma were available for three studies [3, 19, 21], including 751 patients. The incidence of hematoma was not influenced by intraoperative use of TXA compared with controls (risk ratio: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.24 to 1.27; I2 = 0%; P = 0.16; Fig 2B). A total of 48 thrombosis observations were extracted from one randomized controlled study [19]. The incidence of thrombosis events was also not influenced by TXA (risk ratio: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.69 to 2.04; P = 0.55; Fig 2B), whereas the incidence of re-exploration [3, 19] (risk ratio: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.14 to 1.43; P = 0.18; Fig 2B) was found similar between groups.

Discussion

The systematic review and meta-analysis in our study showed that intravenous TXA administration could reduce blood loss in patients undergoing meningioma resections without increasing the risk of postoperative seizure or other postoperative complications.

Despite TXA having been reported to reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements in a variety of surgical settings, the use of TXA in patients undergoing neurosurgery is limited. A previous meta-analysis [22] conducted by Jeremiah et al. indicated administration of TXA reduced total blood loss of standardized mean difference of -1.40 (95%CI: -2.49 to -0.31; P = 0.01) and blood transfusion requirements risk ratio 0.58 (95%CI: 0.34 to 0.99; P = 0.48). Our results also showed that TXA could reduce a mean volume of 252 mL of intraoperative blood loss (95%CI: -469.26 to -34.67; P = 0.02; Fig 2A) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). We explored the following possible explanations for notable heterogeneity: first, differences exist in the populations enrolled across the four trials. Two trials [3, 20] enrolled patients with meningioma diameter ≥ 4 cm, while others [19, 21] had no criteria on tumor size. In general, the larger the tumor diameter, the more blood loss occurred during tumor resection. Furthermore, blood loss is influenced by tumor location, its relationship to venous sinuses, vascular supply, and whether there was perioperative embolization as well. And the estimation of blood loss by the anesthesiologist might be subject to a margin of error and differ in included trials. For blood transfusion requirements, transfusion trigger for RBC were also various in four trials. Three trials were hemoglobin concentration <8 g/dL [3, 19, 21], while another was hematocrit ≤27% [20]. The elements mentioned above might result in heterogeneity in transfusion requirements.

With regard to TXA dosing, official recommendations or guidelines are currently lacking. A prospective interventional dose-dependent study discovered that intraoperative low-dose TXA (10 mg/kg followed by 1 mg/kg/hour over 12 h) infusion effectively reduced intraoperative blood loss by 36% (365 mL vs. 552 mL; P = 0.042) in cardiac surgery [23]. A meta-analysis on the impact of a single preoperative dose of TXA found that administering a single dose of 10-20mg/kg TXA reduced 148 mL of blood loss and lower transfusion rates by 74% without a concomitant increase in the occurrence of venous thromboembolic events in orthopedic, obstetric, and gynecologic surgeries [24]. In a randomized controlled trial with 100 patients undergoing elective craniotomy for tumor excision, lower intraoperative blood loss was demonstrated (817 mL vs. 1084 mL; P = 0.012) in the TXA group with a bolus dose of 10–25 mg/kg followed by 1-10mg/kg/hour, while no patient in the study suffered from a complication related to the administration of TXA [25]. In our meta-analysis, the TXA dose of three trials [3, 20, 21] ranged from 4 g to 7 g, and Shu Li 2023 was approximately 100–150 mg [19]. None of the three studies [3, 20, 21] increased the incidence of TXA-associated perioperative complications. Moreover, our meta-analysis suggested that TXA reduced blood loss without increasing the risk of perioperative complications, which were in accordance with the findings of the individual study included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis [22] mentioned above also suggested that TXA did not result in a significant rise in the occurrence of postoperative seizure and hemostatic events.

Limitations

Some limitations of our meta-analysis need to be considered. Firstly, the crucial data in a part of selected studies were missed, for example, a randomized controlled trial performed by Ravi et al did not provide the volume of transfused RBC and postoperative seizure [20]. In addition, we collected studies through systematically searching selected databases, nevertheless the potential for publication bias persists. Secondly, there was heterogeneity when comparing the blood loss between the TXA and the control group. The multiple analyses in the studies chosen in the meta also led to the high value of I2. The variables that may cause the heterogeneity include the difference in the dosing and timing of TXA administration, tumor size, tumor location, blood transfusion protocols, surgical techniques, approach and methods, as well as different strategies for measuring outcomes. Thirdly, only four studies were selected, and the sample size of the individual studies was limited. Additionally, there was no available data about thrombosis events for TXA administration in an anticoagulant state. Last, though two of the four studies excluded patients with preoperative seizures, only one study reported the use of anticonvulsive therapy, leading to an inconclusive effect of TXA on postoperative seizure.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the administration of TXA could reduce blood loss in patients undergoing intracerebral meningioma resection. However, due to the heterogeneity of studies, the impact of TXA on the risk of seizure or other postoperative complications remains inconclusive. Large multi-center clinical trials are needed to fully confirm the effect of TXA administration in saving blood loss and postoperative seizures in the neurosurgical population.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig Risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

(TIF)

S2 Fig Risk of bias summary and graph.

(TIF)

S1 File Minimal data set for meta-analysis.

(ZIP)

The authors gratefully thank the colleagues of the Neurosurgery department at Beijing Tiantan Hospital for their support and cooperation.

Abbreviations

TXA tranexamic acid

PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

WMD weighted mean difference

RBC red blood cell

CI confidence interval

ICU intensive care unit

Hb hemoglobin

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.r001
Decision Letter 0
Demetriades Andreas K Academic Editor
© 2024 Andreas K Demetriades
2024
Andreas K Demetriades
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
30 May 2024

PONE-D-24-02588Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid on blood loss and seizures in patients undergoing meningioma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peng,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andreas K Demetriades, MBBChir, MPhil, FRCSEd, FEBNS.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate ""supporting information"" files.

Additional Editor Comments:

Major review recommended

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

The search strategy is not clear/available.

Literature suggests that Tranexamic acid can precipitate seizures in certain doses and there is controversy regarding the role of prevention of seizures.

It is not clear whether the patients in either group were on anti-epileptics.

Study needs to more elaborative.

Reviewer #2: Comments for Manuscript Submission ID PONE-D-24-02588

Comments for the Authors

I find it a well-designed paper. This study demonstrates that the administration of TXA could reduce blood loss (by 252 mL) in patients undergoing intracerebral meningioma resection. Meanwhile, TXA did not increase the risk of seizure, or other postoperative complications.

I, however, have a few minor comments to make:

Comment #1:

Meningiomas are one of the most common intracranial tumors

Line 232, on page 20, with null or hard-to-interpret outcomes may not be published; please, the author explicitly states the meaning of “hard-to-interpret outcomes.”

Comment #2:

Line 243-245, on page 21, This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the administration of TXA could reduce blood loss (by 252 mL) in patients undergoing intracerebral meningioma resection. The detailed blood loss (by 252) is inappropriate in the conclusion section.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for this valuable research. The manuscript is presented in a very good, informative and organised way. It is also written in a standard English language. Only the differences between the studies you choose for your analysis are multiple.

Reviewer #4: In their reponse letter, authors claim that recent study showed that TMZ did not add any benefit in the treatment of IDH wildtype glioblastoma compared with radiotherapy alone, regardless of MGMT promoter status (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34000245/. This is simply a misinterpretation: Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. I suggest to change the passages in Discussion accordingly. I suggest to re-write the conclusion and state that the effects of the two drugs were shown in an in-vitro animal model under laboratory circumstances, and that it by no means suggest a positive clinical perspective for patients with necessity of further studies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
2 Jul 2024

Response to Reviewers:

Reviewer #1:

The search strategy is not clear/available. Literature suggests that Tranexamic acid can precipitate seizures in certain doses and there is controversy regarding the role of prevention of seizures. It is not clear whether the patients in either group were on anti-epileptics. Study needs to more elaborative.

Response: Thanks. The search strategy for this paper was: ((tranexamic acid) OR (TXA) OR (Tranexamic acid)) AND (meningioma) AND ((randomized controlled trial) OR (randomized)). Tranexamic acid can precipitate seizures in certain doses, and we found that tranexamic acid did not increase the incidence of seizure in our meta-analysis. Additionally, the meta-analysis included four studies, of which only one mentioned the prophylactic administration of antiepileptic drugs postoperatively, while the remaining three did not specify whether antiepileptic treatment was given.

Author, year Whether to use postoperative antiepileptic drugs administration

Hooda et al., 2017 None.

Rebai et al., 2021 None.

Ravi et al., 2021 None.

Shu Li et al., 2023 Yes. Postoperative antiepileptic treatment includes intravenous or oral administration of valproic acid, oxcarbazepine, carbamazepine, levetiracetam, and phenobarbital. Rescue intramuscular phenobarbital or continuous infusion of midazolam was administered when seizure fit attacks.

Related revised manuscript text: Only one study mentioned the prophylactic administration of antiepileptic drugs postoperatively, while the other studies did not specify this.

Manuscript location: Page 9, line 19- and table 1 last column in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

I find it a well-designed paper. This study demonstrates that the administration of TXA could reduce blood loss (by 252 mL) in patients undergoing intracerebral meningioma resection. Meanwhile, TXA did not increase the risk of seizure, or other postoperative complications. I, however, have a few minor comments to make:

Comment #1: Meningiomas are one of the most common intracranial tumors. Line 232, on page 20, with null or hard-to-interpret outcomes may not be published; please, the author explicitly states the meaning of “hard-to-interpret outcomes.”

Response: Thanks. We acknowledge that the term “hard-to-interpret” is inappropriate and have removed it.

Related revised manuscript text: In addition, we collected studies through systematically searching selected databases, nevertheless the potential for publication bias persists.

Manuscript location: Page 12, line 14- in the revised manuscript.

Comment #2:

Line 243-245, on page 21, This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the administration of TXA could reduce blood loss (by 252 mL) in patients undergoing intracerebral meningioma resection. The detailed blood loss (by 252) is inappropriate in the conclusion section.

Response: Thanks. We agree with you and have moved the data in the conclusion section.

Related revised manuscript text: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the administration of TXA could reduce blood loss in patients undergoing intracerebral meningioma resection.

Manuscript location: Page 13, line 5- in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3:

Thank you for this valuable research. The manuscript is presented in a very good, informative and organised way. It is also written in a standard English language. Only the differences between the studies you choose for your analysis are multiple.

Response: Thanks. We appreciate your positive comments on the manuscript. We acknowledge that the multiple analysis in the studies chose in the meta which also led to the high value of I2. We also discussed this in detail in the limitations section to clarify the impact of these factors on our results.

Related revised manuscript text: The multiple analyses in the studies chose in the meta also led to the high value of I2.

Manuscript location: Page 12, line 17- in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #4:

In their response letter, authors claim that recent study showed that TMZ did not add any benefit in the treatment of IDH wildtype glioblastoma compared with radiotherapy alone, regardless of MGMT promoter status (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34000245/. This is simply a misinterpretation: Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. I suggest to change the passages in Discussion accordingly. I suggest to re-write the conclusion and state that the effects of the two drugs were shown in an in-vitro animal model under laboratory circumstances, and that it by no means suggest a positive clinical perspective for patients with necessity of further studies.

Response: Thanks. The reviewer’s comment appears to not correspond to our paper.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_0701.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.r003
Decision Letter 1
Demetriades Andreas K Academic Editor
© 2024 Andreas K Demetriades
2024
Andreas K Demetriades
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
7 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-02588R1Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid on blood loss and seizures in patients undergoing meningioma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peng,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andreas K Demetriades, MBBChir, MPhil, FRCSEd, FEBNS.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have made suggested changes.

Reviewer #4: Authors present a revised version of their manuscript -systematic review on role of transexamic acid in resection of meningiomas for prevention of postoperative bleeding as well as on prevention of seizures, where following anaylsis of four cohorts and more than 700 patients their main conclusion was that TXE reduces blood loss without increasing the risk of seizures. All limitations which were adressed, such as the fact that 3/4 cohort studies did not report use of anticonvulsive therapy - this needs to be adressed in the Conclusions and in Discussion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.r004
Author response to Decision Letter 1
Submission Version2
14 Jul 2024

Response to Reviewers:

Reviewer #4: Authors present a revised version of their manuscript -systematic review on role of transexamic acid in resection of meningiomas for prevention of postoperative bleeding as well as on prevention of seizures, where following anaylsis of four cohorts and more than 700 patients their main conclusion was that TXA reduces blood loss without increasing the risk of seizures. All limitations which were adressed, such as the fact that 3/4 cohort studies did not report use of anticonvulsive therapy - this needs to be adressed in the Conclusions and in Discussion.

Response: Thanks. We accepted your suggestion and added the limitation in the part of the conclusion and discussion.

Related revised manuscript text:

Last, though two of the four studies excluded patients with preoperative seizures, only one study reported the use of anticonvulsive therapy, leading to an inconclusive effect of TXA on postoperative seizure.

However, due to the heterogeneity of studies, the impact of TXA on the risk of seizure or other postoperative complications remains inconclusive. Large multi-center clinical trials are needed to fully confirm the effect of TXA administration in saving blood loss and postoperative seizures in the neurosurgical population.

Manuscript location: Page 13, line 6-8, line 13-16- in the revised manuscript.

Attachment Submitted filename: LS-reviewer comments-0711.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.r005
Decision Letter 2
Demetriades Andreas K Academic Editor
© 2024 Andreas K Demetriades
2024
Andreas K Demetriades
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version2
17 Jul 2024

Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid on blood loss and seizures in patients undergoing meningioma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-24-02588R2

Dear authors

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andreas K Demetriades, MBBChir, MPhil, FRCSEd, FEBNS.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: Authors have sufficiently responded to reviewer remarks. I suggest this manuscirpt for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0308070.r006
Acceptance letter
Demetriades Andreas K Academic Editor
© 2024 Andreas K Demetriades
2024
Andreas K Demetriades
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
19 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-02588R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peng,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andreas K Demetriades

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Baldi I , Engelhardt J , Bonnet C , et al . Epidemiology of meningiomas. Neuro-Chirurgie. 2018;64 (1 ):5–14. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2014.05.006 25249493
2 Fathi A-R , Roelcke U . Meningioma. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013;13 (4 ):337. doi: 10.1007/s11910-013-0337-4 23463172
3 Hooda B , Chouhan RS , Rath GP , et al . Effect of tranexamic acid on intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing excision of intracranial meningioma. Journal of clinical neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2017;41 :132–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.02.053 28283245
4 Rajagopalan V , Chouhan RS , Pandia MP , et al . Effect of Intraoperative Blood Loss on Perioperative Complications and Neurological Outcome in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Brain Tumor Surgery. Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. 2019;10 (4 ):631–40. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-3399487 31831982
5 Karkouti K , Wijeysundera DN , Yau TM , et al . The independent association of massive blood loss with mortality in cardiac surgery. Transfusion. 2004;44 (10 ):1453–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2004.04144.x 15383018
6 Ortmann E , Besser MW , Klein AA . Antifibrinolytic agents in current anaesthetic practice. British journal of anaesthesia. 2013;111 (4 ):549–63. doi: 10.1093/bja/aet154 23661406
7 Dunn CJ , Goa KL . Tranexamic acid: a review of its use in surgery and other indications. Drugs. 1999;57 (6 ):1005–32. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199957060-00017 10400410
8 Lecker I , Wang DS , Kaneshwaran K , et al . High Concentrations of Tranexamic Acid Inhibit Ionotropic Glutamate Receptors. Anesthesiology. 2017;127 (1 ):89–97. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001665 28475556
9 Levy JH , Koster A , Quinones QJ , et al . Antifibrinolytic Therapy and Perioperative Considerations. Anesthesiology. 2018;128 (3 ):657–70. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001997 29200009
10 Adler Ma SC , Brindle W , Burton G , et al . Tranexamic acid is associated with less blood transfusion in off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. 2011;25 (1 ):26–35. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2010.08.012 21115366
11 Molenaar IQ , Warnaar N , Groen H , et al . Efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytic drugs in liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American journal of transplantation: official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons. 2007;7 (1 ):185–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01591.x 17227567
12 Huang F , Wu D , Ma G , et al . The use of tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss and transfusion in major orthopedic surgery: a meta-analysis. The Journal of surgical research. 2014;186 (1 ):318–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.08.020 24075404
13 Murkin JM , Falter F , Granton J , et al . High-dose tranexamic Acid is associated with nonischemic clinical seizures in cardiac surgical patients. Anesthesia and analgesia. 2010;110 (2 ):350–3. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c92b23 19996135
14 Hemapriya L , More G , Kumar A . Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Reducing Blood Loss in Lower Segment Cesearean Section: A Randomised Controlled Study. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2020;70 (6 ):479–84. doi: 10.1007/s13224-020-01351-3 33417631
15 Ker K , Kiriya J , Perel P , et al . Avoidable mortality from giving tranexamic acid to bleeding trauma patients: an estimation based on WHO mortality data, a systematic literature review and data from the CRASH-2 trial. BMC Emerg Med. 2012;12 :3. doi: 10.1186/1471-227X-12-3 22380715
16 Shakur H , Roberts I , Bautista R , et al . Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet (London, England). 2010;376 (9734 ):23–32. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60835-5 20554319
17 Kagoma YK , Crowther MA , Douketis J , et al . Use of antifibrinolytic therapy to reduce transfusion in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a systematic review of randomized trials. Thromb Res. 2009;123 (5 ):687–96. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2008.09.015 19007970
18 Liberati A , Altman DG , Tetzlaff J , et al . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2009;339 :b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 19622552
19 Li S , Liu M , Yang J , et al . Intravenous tranexamic acid for intracerebral meningioma resections: A randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2024;92 :111285. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111285 37857168
20 Ravi GK , Panda N , Ahluwalia J , et al . Effect of tranexamic acid on blood loss, coagulation profile, and quality of surgical field in intracranial meningioma resection: A prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Surg Neurol Int. 2021;12 :272. doi: 10.25259/SNI_296_2021 34221603
21 Rebai L , Mahfoudhi N , Fitouhi N , et al . Intraoperative tranexamic acid use in patients undergoing excision of intracranial meningioma: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Surg Neurol Int. 2021;12 :289. doi: 10.25259/SNI_177_2021 34221620
22 Wijaya JH , July J , Quintero-Consuegra M , et al . A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of tranexamic acid in surgical procedure for intracranial meningioma. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2023;161 (2 ):383–93. doi: 10.1007/s11060-023-04237-2 36633801
23 Jan C. Horrow MD . dose-response relationship of tranexamic acid. anaesthesiology. 1995.
24 Heyns M , Knight P , Steve AK , et al . A Single Preoperative Dose of Tranexamic Acid Reduces Perioperative Blood Loss: A Meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2021;273 (1 ):75–81. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003793 32224739
25 Vel R , Udupi BP , Satya Prakash MV , et al . Effect of low dose tranexamic acid on intra-operative blood loss in neurosurgical patients. Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 2015;9 (1 ):42–8. doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.146304 25558198
