SynthesisBMJ open2018
Behaviour modification interventions to optimise red blood cell transfusion practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guideline
- Using Blood Wisely: lessons learnt in establishing a national implementation programme to reduce inappropriate red blood cell transfusion.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Current transfusion practices of anesthesiologists in a major city in South India.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Article
- Association of Plasma Fibrinogen and Thromboelastography With Blood Loss in Complex Cardiac Surgery.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of behaviour modification interventions to promote restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS,
interventionsSeven electronic databases were searched to January 2018. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies examining an intervention to modify healthcare providers' RBC transfusion practice in any healthcare setting were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of inappropriate transfusions, RBC units transfused per patient, in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), pretransfusion haemoglobin and healthcare costs. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and meta-regression was performed in cases of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's funnel plot.
resultsEighty-four low to moderate quality studies were included: 3 were RCTs and 81 were non-randomised studies. Thirty-one studies evaluated a single intervention, 44 examined a multimodal intervention. The comparator in all studies was standard of care or historical control. In 33 non-randomised studies, use of an intervention was associated with reduced odds of transfusion (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71)), odds of inappropriate transfusion (OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.59)), RBC units/patient weighted mean difference (WMD: -0.50 units (95% CI -0.85 to -0.16)), LOS (WMD: -1.14 days (95% CI -2.12 to -0.16)) and pretransfusion haemoglobin (-0.28 g/dL (95% CI -0.48 to -0.08)). There was no difference in odds of mortality (OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.02)). Protocol/algorithm and multimodal interventions were associated with the greatest decreases in the primary outcome. There was high heterogeneity among estimates and evidence for publication bias.
conclusionsThe literature examining the impact of interventions on RBC transfusions is extensive, although most studies are non-randomised. Despite this, pooled analysis of 33 studies revealed improvement in the primary outcome. Future work needs to shift from asking, 'does it work?' to 'what works best and at what cost?' PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015024757.
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.