Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28216700›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2017

A retrospective study of transfusion practices in a Tertiary Care Institute.

Babita Raghuwanshi, N K Pehlajani, Mithilesh K Sinha, Swagata Tripathy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Babita RaghuwanshiDepartment of Transfusion Medicine and Blood Bank, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
N K PehlajaniDepartment of Pathology, L.N. Medical College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Mithilesh K SinhaDepartment of Surgery, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Swagata TripathyDepartment of Anaesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsExcessive requests for cross matching blood which is more than the blood required for transfusion are usually based on worst case assumptions leading to overestimation of blood usage. We investigated the blood ordering pattern and transfusion practices so as to incorporate a blood ordering schedule for streamlining the use of blood in various hospital departments.

methodsThe study was conducted over a period of 19 months in a 350 bedded tertiary teaching hospital. Source of data was blood bank requisition forms and blood bank registers of patients who underwent elective or emergency procedures in the hospital, for which blood was ordered. Data were entered in MS Excel and analysed using SPSS version 20.

resultsThe blood bank was requested to prepare 10,594 units of blood for 2556 patients. The blood utilised was 16.04% of total cross matched blood, leaving 83.9% of units cross matched but not transfused to patient for whom it was prepared, i.e., wasted. The surgery department had the highest number of units cross matched and transfused. The least number of units cross matched and wasted due to non-transfusion were from the Department of Oncology.

conclusionThe current deficiency of explicit maximum blood order schedule in our hospital is the major factor responsible for high cross match: transfusion ratio. Therefore, a maximal surgical blood order schedule has been suggested to the hospital transfusion committee to implement maximum surgical blood order schedules for selected procedures.

Indexed as

Cross match: transfusion ratiotransfusion practicestransfusion probability

Identifiers

PMID28216700
PMCPMC5296802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.