Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20565831›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2010

Should fresh blood be recommended for intensive care patients?

Bertrand Guidet

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bertrand GuidetInserm, Unité de Recherche en Epidémiologie Systèmes d'Information et Modélisation, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, 75012 Paris, France. bertrand.guidet@sat.aphp.fr

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fresh blood has many potential advantages over older blood, but there is no evidence that these properties translate into clinical benefit for intensive care patients. The observational multicenter study by Karam and colleagues provides some evidence suggesting that blood stored for less than 14 days is better than older blood in terms of new organ failure and reduction in length of stay in pediatric intensive care units. Though in favor of using young blood, this study suffers from several limitations. As a consequence, it is ethical and certainly pertinent to conduct a randomized clinical trial in order to test the hypothesis that fresh blood might reduce mortality. The rationale is strong and the potential benefit of fresh blood is substantial.

Indexed as

Blood BanksBlood TransfusionCritical IllnessHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicTime FactorsTransfusion Reaction

Identifiers

PMID20565831
PMCPMC2911714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.