Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29484934›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2018

Routine blood group and antibody screening prior to emergency laparoscopy.

J Barrett-Lee, J Vatish, M Vazirian-Zadeh, P Waterland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The carbon footprint of group and save in elective and emergency surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Routine group and save screening prior to emergency laparoscopic surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021
    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.

J Barrett-LeeDudley Group NHS Foundation Trust , UK.
J VatishDudley Group NHS Foundation Trust , UK.
M Vazirian-ZadehDudley Group NHS Foundation Trust , UK.
P WaterlandDudley Group NHS Foundation Trust , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Studies show that rates of blood transfusion associated with general surgical laparoscopy are low. Currently, there are no national guidelines in the UK regarding blood group and antibody screening (G&S) for patients undergoing emergency laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess whether using G&S before emergency laparoscopic general surgery routinely is worthwhile by identifying rates of perioperative transfusion. Methods Data were collected retrospectively on all emergency laparoscopic procedures at a single district general hospital between January 2014 and 31 December 2016. Emergency laparoscopic general surgical cases were included and gynaecological cases excluded. Records were reviewed to ascertain whether G&S was performed, whether antibodies were detected and whether patients were transfused. Results A total of 562 emergency laparoscopic cases were performed. The median age was 28 years (range: 6-95 years). Laparoscopic appendicectomy (n=446), diagnostic laparoscopy (n=47) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=25) were the most common procedures. Of the total patient cohort, 514 (91.5%) and 349 (70.1%) had a first and second G&S respectively while 30 (5.3%) had no G&S. Four patients (0.71%) had antibodies detected. One patient (0.18%) received a transfusion. This patient had undergone laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer and there was no major intraoperative haemorrhage but he was transfused perioperatively for chronic anaemia. Conclusions These results demonstrate a low rate of blood transfusion in emergency laparoscopic general surgery. The majority of these patients had a low risk of major intraoperative haemorrhage and we therefore argue that G&S was not warranted. We propose a more targeted approach to the requirement for preoperative G&S and the use of O negative blood in the event of acute haemorrhage from major vessel injury.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAppendectomyBlood Group AntigensBlood Grouping and CrossmatchingBlood Loss, SurgicalBlood TransfusionChildDuodenal UlcerEmergency Medical ServicesHospitals, DistrictHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsIsoantibodiesBlood Group AntigensIsoantibodiesBlood grouping and cross-matchingEmergencyLaparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID29484934
PMCPMC5958864

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.