ArticleBMC pediatrics2018
Comparison of neonatal red cell transfusion reporting in neonatal intensive care units with blood product issue data: a validation study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [The current situation and the future of pediatric blood transfusion].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2024Review
- Changes in Hemoglobin Concentrations Post-immunoglobulin Therapy in Patients with Kawasaki Disease: A Population-Based Study Using a Claims Database in Japan.Paediatric drugs · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfants in Neonatal Intensive Care Units represent a heavily transfused population, and are the focus of much research interest. Such research commonly relies on custom research databases or routinely collected data. Knowledge of the accuracy of transfusion recording in these databases is important. This study aims to assess the reporting of red blood cell transfusion neonatal intensive care unit data compared with routinely collected hospital blood bank ("Blood Watch") data.
methodsBlood Watch data was linked with the NICUS Data Collection, and with routinely collected birth and hospital data for births between 2007 and 2010. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for transfusion were calculated, compared to the Blood Watch data. The agreement between the NICUS and Blood Watch datasets on quantity transfused was also assessed.
resultsData was available on 3934 infants, of which 16.2% were transfused. Transfusion was reported in the NICUS Data Collection with high specificity (98.3%, 95% confidence interval (97.8%,98.7%)), but with some under-enumeration (sensitivity 89.2% (95% CI 86.5%,91.5%)). There was excellent agreement between the NICUS and Blood Watch datasets on quantity transfused (Kappa 0.90, 95% CI (0.88,0.92)). Transfusion reporting in the hospital data for these infants was also reliably reported (Sensitivity 83.7% (95% CI 80.6%,86.5%), specificity 99.1% (95% CI 98.7%,99.4%)).
conclusionsTransfusion is reliably reported in the neonatal intensive care unit data, with some under-reporting, and quantity transfused is well recorded. The NICUS Data Collection provides useful information on blood transfusions, including quantity of blood transfused in a high risk population.
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.