ReviewMilitary medicine2018
Utilizing Propensity Score Analyses in Prehospital Blood Product Transfusion Studies: Lessons Learned and Moving Toward Best Practice.
Review in Military medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elicitation of prior probability distributions for a proposed Bayesian randomized clinical trial of whole blood for trauma resuscitation.Transfusion · 2020Trial
- Multicentre observational study on practice of prehospital management of hypotensive trauma patients: the SPITFIRE study protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Whole blood transfusion versus component therapy in trauma resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Article
- Interim monitoring of nonrandomized prospective studies that invoke propensity scoring for decision making.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, observational studies analyzing prehospital blood product transfusions (PHT) for trauma have become more widespread in both military and civilian communities. Due to these studies' non-random treatment assignment, propensity score (PS) methodologies are often used to determine an intervention's effectiveness. However, there are no guidelines on how to appropriately conduct PS analyses in prehospital studies. Such analyses are complicated when treatments are given in emergent settings as the ability to administer treatment early, often before hospital admission, can interfere with assumptions of PS modeling. This study conducts a systematic review of literature from military and civilian populations to assess current practice of PS methodology in PHT analyses. The decision-making process from the multicenter Prehospital Resuscitation on Helicopter Study (PROHS) is discussed and used as a motivating example. Results show that researchers often omit or incorrectly assess variable balance between treatment groups and include inappropriate variables in the propensity model. When used correctly, PS methodology is an effective statistical technique to show that aggressive en route resuscitation strategies, including PHT, can reduce mortality in individuals with severe trauma. This review provides guidelines for best practices in study design and analyses that will advance trauma care.
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.