Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34460843›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight infants: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Peng Wang, Xing Wang, Haidong Deng, Linjie Li, Weelic Chong, Yang Hai, Yu Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. 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
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Prevention Strategies and Management of Necrotizing Enterocolitis.Current treatment options in pediatrics · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Survey of transfusion practices in preterm infants in Europe.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2023
    Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Peng WangAffiliated Hospital & Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xing WangAffiliated Hospital & Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Haidong DengWest China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Linjie LiAffiliated Hospital & Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Weelic ChongSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Yang HaiZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, New York, United States of America.
Yu ZhangAffiliated Hospital & Clinical Medical College of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4714-2167
Chengdu Medical College · CNHofstra University · USSichuan University · CNThomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight infants.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database without any language restrictions. The last search was conducted in August 15, 2020. All randomized controlled trials comparing the use of restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants were selected. Pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variable with 95% confidence intervals were assessed by a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

resultsOverall, this meta-analysis included 6 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,483 participants. Restrictive transfusion does not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), and does not increase the composite outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment (RR, 1.01, 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I2 = 7%; high-quality evidence) or other serious adverse events. Results were similar in subgroup analyses of all-cause mortality by weight of infants, gestational age, male infants, and transfusion volume.

conclusionsIn very low birth weight infants, a restrictive threshold for red blood cell transfusion was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, in either short term or long term.

Indexed as

Erythrocyte TransfusionClinical Trials as TopicHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Very Low Birth WeightNervous SystemOutcome Assessment, Health CarePublicationsRiskTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34460843
PMCPMC8405031
OpenAlexW3196981118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.