ArticleSingapore medical journal2016
The use of massive transfusion protocol for trauma and non-trauma patients in a civilian setting: what can be done better?
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Efficacy of high versus low plasma: red blood cell ratio resuscitation in patients with severe trauma requiring massive blood transfusion: a meta-analysis].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2017Pooled it
- Improving the Compliance of Massive Hemorrhage Protocols Through Education Is Associated with Patient Survival.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of Massive Transfusion Protocol Utilization in Trauma Across Sociodemographic Groups.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Blood Lost: A Retrospective Review of Blood Wastage from a Massive Transfusion Protocol in a Tertiary Paediatric Hospital.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- RBC Transfusion Strategies in the ICU: A Concise Review.Critical care medicine · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMassive transfusion protocol (MTP) is increasingly used in civilian trauma cases to achieve better haemostatic resuscitation in patients requiring massive blood transfusions (MTs), with improved survival outcomes. However, in non-trauma patients, evidence for MTP is lacking. This study aims to assess the outcomes of a newly established MTP in a civilian setting, for both trauma and non-trauma patients, in an acute surgical care unit.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed on 46 patients for whom MTP was activated in Changi General Hospital, Singapore. The patients were categorised into trauma and non-trauma groups. Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC) score was used to identify MTP trauma patients and analyse over-activation rates.
resultsOnly 39.1% of all cases with MTP activation eventually received MTs; 39.8% of the MTs were for non-trauma patients. Mean fresh frozen plasma to packed red blood cells (pRBC) ratio achieved with MTP was 0.741, while mean platelet to pRBC ratio was 0.213. The 24-hour mortality rate for all patients who received an MT upon MTP activation was 33.3% (trauma vs. non-trauma group: 45.5% vs. 14.3%). The ABC scoring system used for trauma patients had a sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 41.2%, respectively.
conclusionMTP may be used for both trauma and non-trauma patients in acute care surgery. Scoring systems to predict the need for an MT, improved compliance to predefined transfusion ratios and regular reviews of the MTP are necessary to optimise MTPs and to improve the outcomes of patients receiving MTs.
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.