ArticleBMC anesthesiology2016
Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between peri-operative red blood cell transfusion and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing major cancer surgery: an umbrella review.Anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Prophylactic Probiotic Supplementation for Preterm Neonates-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Studies.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Pooled it
- The value of observational studies in MDD research based on the example of trazodone once-a-day.Neuroscience applied · 2026Article
- Consensus of the Brazilian association of hematology, hemotherapy and cellular therapy on patient blood management: History and scenario of patient blood management in the world and in Brazil.Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy · 2024Article
- Perioperative inappropriate red blood cell transfusions significantly increase total costs in elective surgical patients, representing an important economic burden for hospitals.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Independent Supported Housing for non-homeless individuals with severe mental illness: Comparison of two effectiveness studies using a randomised controlled and an observational study design.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Review
- Alternative causal inference methods in population health research: Evaluating tradeoffs and triangulating evidence.SSM - population health · 2020Article
- Rethinking the role of postoperative critical care in an inequitable world.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- Randomized controlled trials vs. observational studies: why not just live together?BMC anesthesiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also appraising the key elements of study design. A long-standing debate regarding findings of randomized controlled trials compared with those of observational studies, their strengths and limitations and questions regarding causal inference, has recently come into focus in relation to research assessing patient outcomes in transfusion medicine. DISCUSSION: Observational studies are seen to have limitations that are largely avoided with randomized controlled trials, leading to the view that observational studies should not generally be used to inform practice. For example, observational studies examining patient outcomes associated with blood transfusion often present higher estimates of adverse outcomes than randomized controlled trials. Some have explained this difference as being a result of observational studies not properly adjusting for differences between patients transfused and those not transfused. However, one factor often overlooked, likely contributing to these variances between study methods is different exposure criteria. Another common to both study methods is exposure dose, specifically, measuring units transfused during only a part of the patient's hospital stay. When comparing the results of observational studies with randomized controlled trials assessing transfusion outcomes it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of study design. Any study, regardless of its method, should focus on accurate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables of interest. Failure to do so may subject the study, regardless of its type, to bias and the need to interpret the results with caution.
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.