Trial reportTransfusion2020
Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the PROPPR trial transfusion protocols.
Trial report in Transfusion, 2020. 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.
- Blood transfusion strategies for major bleeding in trauma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Next-generation blood products: Results of a survey on interest, indications, drivers, and barriers to adoption.Transfusion · 2026Article
- Article
- Targeting Inflammation After Hemorrhagic Shock as a Molecular and Experimental Journey to Improve Outcomes: A Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Platelets to prevent progression of trauma-induced head bleed in patients on antiplatelet medication.Surgery in practice and science · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere have been no prior investigations of the cost effectiveness of transfusion strategies for trauma resuscitation. The Pragmatic, Randomized, Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) study was a Phase III multisite, randomized trial in 680 subjects comparing the efficacy of 1:1:1 transfusion ratios of plasma and platelets to red blood cells with the 1:1:2 ratio. We hypothesized that 1:1:1 transfusion results in an acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, when estimated using patients' age-specific life expectancy and cost of care during the 30-day PROPPR trial period. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsInternational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes were prospectively collected, and subjects were matched 1:2 to subjects in the Healthcare Utilization Program State Inpatient Data to estimate cost weights. We used a decision tree analysis, combined with standard costs and estimated years of expected survival to determine the cost effectiveness of the two treatments.
resultsThe 1:1:1 group had higher overall costs for the blood products but were more likely to achieve hemostasis and decreased hemorrhagic death by 24 hours (p = 0.006). For every 100 patients treated in the 1:1:1 group, eight more achieved hemostasis than in the 1:1:2 group. At 30 days, the total hospital cost per 100 patients was $5.6 million in the 1:1:1 group compared with $5.0 million in the 1:1:2 group. For each 100 patients, the 1:1:1 group had 218.5 more years of life expectancy. This was at a cost of $2994 per year gained.
conclusionThe 1:1:1 transfusion ratio in severely injured hemorrhaging trauma patients is a very cost-effective strategy for increasing hemostasis and decreasing trauma deaths.
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.