ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2021
Routine group and save screening prior to emergency laparoscopic surgery.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Substantial international variation in the cost of blood group and save and crossmatch: A systematic review.British journal of haematology · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning-based multicenter prediction of postoperative sepsis in emergency colon cancer: role of surgical approach and inflammatory markers.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Reducing routine group and save testing in emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy surgery: a quality improvement project assessing the triple bottom line.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Article
- An Investigation Into the Risk Factors for Transfusion Need After Neck of Femur Fracture Surgery.Cureus · 2024Article
- The Necessity of Routine Pre-operative Group and Save Testing for Emergency Appendectomies.Cureus · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTwo group and save (G&S) samples are routinely collected from patients undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy and/or emergency appendicectomy. We aimed to identify the necessity of this practice by looking at the perioperative transfusion rates.
methodsData were obtained from our electronic theatre system for all patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic surgery (specifically diagnostic laparoscopy and/or laparoscopic appendicectomy) between January 2017 and December 2018. Records were reviewed for the number of G&S samples sent and perioperative transfusion rates.
resultsA total of 451 patients were included in the study. The numbers of procedures performed in 2017 and 2018 were 202 (44.8%) and 249 (55.2%), respectively. The total number of samples sent was 930. Only 786 (84.5%) samples were processed and the rest were rejected for various reasons. Of the 451 patients included in the study, 308 (68.3%) had two G&S samples sent, whereas 41 patients (9.1%) had only one G&S sample sent. Fifty-six (12.4%) and 20 (4.4%) patients had three and four G&S samples sent, respectively. Only two patients required transfusion perioperatively (0.4%), and the indication in both was irrelevant to the primary operation.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate a near-zero transfusion rate in this patient cohort. Omitting G&S is safe and potentially saves time and resources.
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.