Trial reportMilitary medicine2019
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Is More Effective in Massive Burns: Results of the TRIBE Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Military medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Examining 1:1 vs. 4:1 Packed Red Blood Cell to Fresh Frozen Plasma Ratio Transfusion During Pediatric Burn Excision.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2020Trial
- Burn injury-induced G-CSF secretion reduces spic+ erythroblastic island macrophages in the bone marrow and impairs medullary erythropoiesis.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2025Article
- Ultra-restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in extensively burned patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- IL-1/MyD88-Dependent G-CSF and IL-6 Secretion Mediates Postburn Anemia.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2023Article
- [Current situation and reflection of clinical trials in the field of burn medicine in China].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2022Article
- Coagulation Disorders And Mortality In Burn Injury: A Systematic Review.Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2022Article
- Clinical practice for outpatients that are chronically red cell dependent: A survey in the Netherlands.Vox sanguinis · 2022Article
- M-CSF supports medullary erythropoiesis and erythroid iron demand following burn injury through its activity on homeostatic iron recycling.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Remote Monitoring of Vital and Activity Parameters in Chronic Transfusion-Dependent Patients: A Feasibility Pilot Using Wearable Biosensors.Digital biomarkersArticle
- Surgical Management Evolution Between 2 Massive Burn Cases at 17-Year Interval: Contribution of Cell Therapies in Improving the Surgical Care.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesStudies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20-59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy.
methodsPatients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin <7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin <10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.
resultsThree hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p < 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p < 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p < 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20-59%) group (p > 0.05).
conclusionsA restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing.
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.