ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2020
How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators.
Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variability in viscoelastic haemostatic assay in major haemorrhage protocols: A unified approach or mixed signals?Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Toward Standardized Massive Transfusion Protocols: A Multicenter Evaluation of Practice Variability Within a National Trauma System.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Improving the Compliance of Massive Hemorrhage Protocols Through Education Is Associated with Patient Survival.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Canadian tertiary care pediatric massive hemorrhage protocols: a survey and comprehensive national review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
- CD44+ and CD31+ extracellular vesicles (EVs) are significantly reduced in polytraumatized patients with hemorrhagic shock - evaluation of their diagnostic and prognostic potential.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Blood shortages and changes to massive transfusion protocols: Survey of hospital practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2022Article
- Effect of Massive Transfusion Protocol on Coagulation Function in Elderly Patients with Multiple Injuries.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- If not now, when? The value of the MTP in managing massive bleeding.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManagement of patients with major haemorrhage often requires urgent administration of multiple blood products, commonly termed a massive transfusion (MT). Clinical practice in these scenarios is supported in part by evidence-based MT guidelines, which typically recommend use of an MT protocol (MTP). MTPs aim to provide practical and specific interpretation of MT guidelines for local institutional use, outlining tasks and pre-configuration of blood product packs to be transfused to provide efficient and evidence-based transfusion management. Institutions can support this aim by the measurement of MTP performance and patient outcomes through collection of quality indicators (QI). Many international guidelines now recommend the routine collection of a range of QIs relating to MT/MTP; however, there is significant variation in procedures and no benchmarks or minimal evidence to guide practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to document and evaluate reported QIs for MTP. We conducted a search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for published studies from inception until May 14, 2020, that reported at least one MTP QI and use of an MTP or equivalent protocol. Included studies were evaluated using a QI classification system based on current MT QI guidelines and the Donabedian QI framework.
resultsWe identified 107 eligible studies. Trauma patients were the most commonly evaluated group, and total blood products transfused and in-hospital mortality were the most commonly reported QIs. Reflecting the lack of international consensus and benchmarks, we found significant variability in the reporting of QIs, which often did not reflect guideline recommendations. DISCUSSION: Our review highlights the importance of establishing international consensus on prioritised QIs with quantifiable targets that are important to the process of MT.
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.