SynthesisMedicine2019
Red blood cell transfusion threshold after pediatric cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transfusion Strategies for Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Pediatric cardiology · 2021Pooled it
- Development and evaluation of a dynamic nomogram model for intraoperative blood transfusion decision-making.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy is implemented to minimize risk following allogeneic blood transfusion in adult cardiac surgery. However, it is still unclear if it can be applied to pediatric cardiac patients. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of postoperative restrictive transfusion thresholds on clinical outcomes based on up-to-date results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in pediatric cardiac surgery.
methodWe searched for RCTs and observational studies in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to October 26, 2017. We also searched reference lists of published guidelines, reviews, and relevant articles, as well as conference proceedings. No language restrictions were applied and no observational study met the inclusion criteria.
resultsFour RCTs on cardiac surgery involving 454 patients were included. There were no differences in the pooled fixed effects of intensive care unit (ICU) stay between the liberal and restrictive transfusion thresholds (standardized mean difference SMD, 0.007; 95% confidence interval CI, -0.18-0.19; P = .94). There were also no differences in the length of hospital stay (SMD, -0.062; 95% CI, -0.28-0.15; P = .57), ventilation duration (SMD, -0.015; 95% CI, -0.25-0.22; P = .90), mean arterial lactate level (SMD, 0.071; 95% CI, -0.22-0.36; P = .63), and mortality (risk ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.13-1.94; P = .31). There was no inter-trial heterogeneity for any pooled analysis. Publication bias was tested using Egger, Begg, or the trim-and-fill test, and the results indicated no significant publication bias.
conclusionEvidence from RCTs in pediatric cardiac surgery, though limited, showed non-inferiority of restrictive thresholds over liberal thresholds in length of ICU stay and other outcomes following red blood cell transfusion. Further high-quality RCTs are necessary to confirm the findings.
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.