Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12076491›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Pre-operative autologous donation for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion.

D A Henry, P A Carless, A J Moxey, D O'Connell, M A Forgie, P S Wells, D Fergusson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Use of recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without hemophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Desmopressin for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

D A HenryDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Mater Hospital, Waratah, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, 2298. mddah@mail.newcastle.edu.au
P A Carless
A J Moxey
D O'Connell
M A Forgie
P S Wells
D Fergusson
Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital · AUCancer Council NSW · AUInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CALondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have prompted re-consideration of the indications for the transfusion of allogeneic red cells (blood from an unrelated donor), and a range of techniques designed to minimise transfusion requirements.

objectivesTo examine the evidence for the efficacy of pre-operative autologous blood donation (PAD) in reducing the need for peri-operative allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. SEARCH STRATEGY: Articles were identified by: computer searches of OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents (to March 2001) and web sites of international health technology assessment agencies (to January 2001). References in the identified trials were checked and authors contacted to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to PAD, or to a control group who did not receive the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed using criteria proposed by Schulz et al (1995) and Jadad et al (1996). The principle outcomes were: the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red blood cells, and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review. MAIN

resultsOverall PAD reduced the risk of receiving an allogeneic blood transfusion by a relative 63% (RR=0.37: 95%CI:0.26,0.54). The absolute reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion was 43.8% (RD=-0.438: 95%CI: -0.607,-0.268). In contrast the results show that the risk of receiving any blood transfusion (allogeneic and/or autologous) is actually increased by pre-operative autologous blood donation (RR=1.29: 95%CI: 1.12,1.48). Trials were unblinded and allocation concealment was not described in 87.5% of the trials. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsAlthough the trials of PAD showed a reduction in the need for allogeneic blood the methodological quality of the trials was poor and the overall transfusion rates (allogeneic and/or autologous) in these trials were high, and were increased by recruitment into the PAD arms of the trials. This raises questions about the true benefit of PAD. In the absence of large, high quality trials using clinical endpoints, it is not possible to say whether the benefits of PAD outweigh the harms.

Indexed as

Blood Transfusion, AutologousErythrocyte TransfusionHumansPreoperative CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRiskTransplantation, Homologous

Identifiers

PMID12076491
PMCPMC4171455
OpenAlexW1936462000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.