Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26848822›Full record

SynthesisVox sanguinis2016

Transfusion of recently donated (fresh) red blood cells (RBCs) does not improve survival in comparison with current practice, while safety of the oldest stored units is yet to be established: a meta-analysis.

K E Remy, J Sun, D Wang, J Welsh, S B Solomon, H G Klein, C Natanson, I Cortés-Puch

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Vox sanguinis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Red blood cell storage lesion: causes and potential clinical consequences.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

8 authors.

K E RemyCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
J SunCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
D WangCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
J WelshNIH Library, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
S B SolomonCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
H G KleinDepartment of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
C NatansonCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
I Cortés-PuchCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

Is there a difference between transfusing old vs fresh blood in critical illnessZIACL090026 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI SOLOMON, STEVEN · 2010 to 2024
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CL999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesPreclinical studies generated the hypothesis that older stored red blood cells (RBCs) can increase transfusion risks. To examine the most updated and complete clinical evidence and compare results between two trial designs, we assessed both observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effect of RBC storage age on mortality. MATERIALS AND

methodsFive databases were searched through December 2014 for studies comparing mortality using transfused RBCs having longer and shorter storage times.

resultsAnalysis of six RCTs found no significant differences in survival comparing current practice (average storage age of 2 to 3 weeks) to transfusion of 1- to 10-day-old RBCs (OR 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07). RBC storage age was lower in RCTs vs. observational studies (P = 0·01). The 31 observational studies found an increased risk of death (OR 1·13, 95% CI 1·03-1·24) (P = 0·01) with increasing age of RBCs, a different mortality effect than RCTs (P = 0·02).

conclusionRCTs established that transfusion of 1- to 10-day-old stored RBCs is not superior to current practice. The apparent discrepancy in mortality between analyses of RCTs and observational studies may in part relate to differences in hypotheses tested and ages of stored RBCs studied. Further trials investigating 1- to 10-day-old stored RBC benefits would seem of lower priority than studies to determine whether 4- to 6-week stored units have safety and efficacy equivalent to the 2- to 3-week-old stored RBCs commonly transfused today.

Indexed as

Blood SafetyBlood PreservationClinical Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualErythrocytesErythrocyte TransfusionHumansOdds RatioTime Factorsblood safetyclinical trialquality controlred cell componentstransfusion medicine (in general)transfusion therapy

Identifiers

PMID26848822
PMCPMC4938770

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.