Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28109111›Full record

SynthesisNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University2017

[Efficacy of high versus low plasma: red blood cell ratio resuscitation in patients with severe trauma requiring massive blood transfusion: a meta-analysis].

Fang Yu, Tao Zhong, Gang Wu

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Fang YuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.E-mail: soiphy@163.com.
Tao Zhong
Gang Wu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of high (≥1:2) and low (<1:2) plasma: red blood cell (RBC) ratio resuscitation in patients with severe trauma requiring massive blood transfusion.

methodsThe databases including the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were systemically searched for relevant studies published between January, 2009 and April, 2016. The selection of studies, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction were performed by two researchers independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main endpoint was 24-h mortality, 30-day mortality and 24-h survival rate.

resultsFive observational studies reporting outcomes of 1024 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Four studies documented civilian cases and one study had a military setting. No significant differences were found in the Injury Severity Score (ISS) between patient groups receiving high and low plasma: RBC ratio resuscitation. Compared with the low-ratio group, the patients with high-ratio resuscitation showed a significant reduction in the 24-h mortality rate (OR=0.35, 95%CI [0.25, 0.48], P<0.000 01) and the 30-day mortality rate (OR=0.55, 95%CI [0.41, 0.75], P=0.0001). An increased survival rate was observed in patients receiving high plasma: RBC ratio resuscitation within the initial 24 h following the trauma (HR=2.34, 95%CI [1.46, 3.73], P=0.00001).

conclusionRaising the plasma: RBC ratio to 0.5 or higher may decrease the mortality rate of the patients with severe trauma who need massive blood transfusion.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionResuscitationErythrocyte CountErythrocytesHumansInjury Severity ScoreObservational Studies as TopicPlasmaRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID28109111
PMCPMC6765755

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.