ArticleVox sanguinis2020
The systematic use of evidence-based methodologies and technologies enhances shared decision-making in the 2018 International Consensus Conference on Patient Blood Management.
Article in Vox sanguinis, 2020. 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.
- Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Intramedullary administration of tranexamic acid reduces bleeding in proximal femoral nail antirotation surgery for intertrochanteric fractures in elderly individuals: A randomized controlled trial.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPatient Blood Management (PBM) aims to optimize the care of patients who might need a blood transfusion. The International Consensus Conference on PBM (ICC-PBM) aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations on three topics: preoperative anaemia, red blood cell transfusion thresholds and implementation of PBM programmes. This paper reports how evidence-based methodologies and technologies were used to enhance shared decision-making in formulating recommendations during the ICC-PBM. MATERIALS &
methodsSystematic reviews on 17 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions were conducted by a Scientific Committee (22 international topic experts and one methodologist) according to GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using Consensus Development Conference methodology.
resultsWe screened 17 607 references and included 145 studies. The overall certainty in the evidence of effect estimates was generally low or very low. During the ICC, plenary sessions (100-200 stakeholders from a range of clinical disciplines and community representatives) were followed by closed sessions where multidisciplinary decision-making panels (>50 experts and patient organizations) formulated recommendations. Two chairs (content-expert and methodologist) moderated each session and two rapporteurs documented the discussions. The Evidence-to-Decision template (GRADEpro software) was used as the central basis in the process of formulating recommendations.
conclusionThis ICC-PBM resulted in 10 clinical and 12 research recommendations supported by an international stakeholder group of experts in blood transfusion. Systematic, rigorous and transparent evidence-based methodology in a formal consensus format should be the new standard to evaluate (cost-) effectiveness of medical treatments, such as blood transfusion.
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.