Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26492900›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2015

An evidence-based approach to red blood cell transfusions in asymptomatically anaemic patients.

A W Chan, C J de Gara

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A W ChanUniversity of Alberta , Canada.
C J de GaraUniversity of Alberta , Canada.
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurgeons and physicians encounter blood transfusions on a daily basis but a robust evidence-based strategy on indications and timing of transfusion in asymptomatic anaemic patients is yet to be determined. For judicious use of blood products, the risks inherent to packed red blood cells, the patient's co-morbidities and haemoglobin (Hb)/haematocrit levels should be considered. This review critiques and summarises the latest available evidence on the indications for transfusions in healthy and cardiac disease patients as well as the timing of transfusions relative to surgery.

methodsAn electronic literature search of the MEDLINE(®), Google Scholar™ and Trip databases was conducted for articles published in English between January 2006 and January 2015. Studies discussing timing and indications of transfusion in medical and surgical patients were retrieved. Bibliographies of studies were checked for other pertinent articles that were missed by the initial search.

findingsSix level 1 studies (randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews) and six professional society guidelines were included in this review. In healthy patients without cardiac disease, a restrictive transfusion trigger of Hb 70-80g/l is safe and appropriate whereas in cardiac patients, the trigger is Hb 80-100g/l. The literature on timing of transfusions relative to surgery is limited. For the studies available, preoperative transfusions were associated with a decreased incidence of subsequent transfusions and timing of transfusions did not affect the rates of colorectal cancer recurrence.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAnemiaErythrocyte TransfusionEvidence-Based MedicineHumansTransplantation, HomologousBlood transfusionTransfusion trigger

Identifiers

PMID26492900
PMCPMC5096603
OpenAlexW1940567689

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.