Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31808828›Full record

ArticleHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2019

Patient blood management as the standard of care.

Michael F Murphy, Antony Palmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael F MurphyNational Health Service Blood & Transplant, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Antony PalmerNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood transfusion is one of the most common hospital procedures in developed countries. However, inappropriate use of blood transfusion is common, and this is of considerable concern because transfusion is known to be associated with adverse events and is costly. Reductions in blood use have resulted from recent evidence indicating that restrictive use of red blood cell transfusions is associated with similar patient outcomes to liberal strategies and from a focus on patient blood management (PBM), which recognizes the importance of conserving the patient's own blood alongside the judicious use of transfusion. A recent Consensus Conference in Frankfurt developed practice and research recommendations for PBM but also indicated that additional studies are needed to provide better evidence for PBM interventions, including for improved patient outcomes and lower hospital costs as well as for reductions in blood utilization. In the meanwhile, it is of utmost importance to translate PBM guidelines into practical day-to-day recommendations and encourage their use to make PBM "the standard of care."

Indexed as

Standard of CareErythrocyte TransfusionFemaleHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID31808828
PMCPMC6913475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.