ReviewTransfusion2016
Comprehensive US government program for dried plasma development.
Review in Transfusion, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Narrative review of strategies for blood product shelf-life extension.Transfusion · 2026Review
- Review
- Dried Plasma for Major Trauma: Past, Present, and Future.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Novel blood derived hemostatic agents for bleeding therapy and prophylaxis.Current opinion in hematology · 2022Review
- Characterization and first-in-human clinical dose-escalation safety evaluation of a next-gen human freeze-dried plasma.Transfusion · 2022Article
- The need for an artificial oxygen carrier for disasters and pandemics, including COVID-19.Transfusion · 2020Article
- Hemostatic agents for prehospital hemorrhage control: a narrative review.Military Medical Research · 2020Review
- The Chemistry of Lyophilized Blood Products.Bioconjugate chemistry · 2018Review
- Lack of species-specific difference in pulmonary function when using mouse versus human plasma in a mouse model of hemorrhagic shock.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transfusion of plasma early after severe injury has been associated with improved survival. There are significant logistic factors that limit the ability to deliver plasma where needed in austere environments, such as the battlefield or during a significant civilian emergency. While some countries have access to more logistically supportable dried plasma, there is no such product approved for use in the United States. There is a clear need for a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dried plasma for military and emergency-preparedness uses, as well as for civilian use in remote or austere settings. The Department of Defense (DoD) and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority are sponsoring development of three dried plasma products, incorporating different technologic approaches and business models. At the same time, the DoD is sponsoring prospective, randomized clinical studies on the prehospital use of plasma. These efforts are part of a coordinated program to provide a dried plasma for military and civilian applications and to produce additional information on plasma use so that, by the time we have an FDA-approved dried plasma, we will better understand how to use it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.