ArticleCureus2020
Wastage of Blood Units at Tertiary Care Hospitals of Lahore.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of safety, efficacy, and guideline compliance in home-based red blood cell transfusions: An 8.5-year retrospective study in suburban Tokyo.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Is Cross-Matching Required? Analysis of Blood Transfusion in Gynecological Surgeries at an Academic Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Demography and blood donation trends in Saudi Arabia: A nationwide retrospective, cross-sectional study.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Article
- Is the curriculum of transfusion medicine in MBBS aligned with practical needs: A point of view of fresh graduates.Asian journal of transfusion scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBlood and its products are the most valuable resource in every healthcare institution. Judicial use of these limited resources is necessary and important to maintain sufficient supply. Blood products and its transfusion system are being evaluated by the use of several markers. The use of crossmatch to transfusion ratio (C/T) was first proposed by Boral Henry in 1975. Nowadays, the C/T ratio is being used by researchers to assess transfusion practices. Ideally, (C/T) ratio has to be 1.0 but it has been suggested that a ratio of 2.5 or less would indicate effective blood use.
objectiveTo assess crossmatch to transfusion ratio (C/T ratio), transfusion probability (%T), and transfusion index (TI) in patients of medical and surgical wards. To assess the wastage of blood components/whole blood units.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at Mayo Hospital/King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Services Hospital Lahore, and Alkhidmat Blood Bank Surrayya Azeem Hospital between January 2019 and June 2019. Nonprobability convenient sampling was performed and all collected data were entered and analyzed by using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version 20).
resultsThe total patients who were ordered to arrange blood were 1322 for which overall 2715 crossmatches had been done. Among these crossmatches, a total of 1536 of the donors were bled for from which only 815 units had been transfused to the patients. Overall C/T ratio was found to be 3.33 and the overall wastage was 38.9%.
conclusionsBlood transfusion is considered useful in the management of surgical as well as medical patients. Too many units are ordered out of which the majority are wasted due to nonutilization. There is a need for standard operating procedures for transfusion of blood. There shall be regular audits to improve the blood collection, treatment, delivery, and usage practices of this scarce resource.
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.