ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2017
A retrospective study of transfusion practices in a Tertiary Care Institute.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Red blood cell ordering pattern following the introduction of a transfusion procedure based on haemoglobin concentration and anaemia symptoms: A retrospective study.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Blood Utilization Review Using Transfusion Indices in a Tertiary Care Center: A Retrospective Observational Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Analyzing RBC Transfusion Practices Using Quality Indicators: A Retrospective Transfusion Audit.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Efficiency of Blood Utilization in Elective Oncosurgeries in a Tertiary Care Cancer Centre: A Case for Data Disaggregation.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- A study to determine the clinical, hematological, cytogenetic, and molecular profile in CML patient in and around Eastern UP, India.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2019Article
- Estimation of Blood Utilization in Elective Surgeries to Formulate Maximum Surgical Blood Ordering Schedule for a Tertiary Care Center in North India.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
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
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
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.