Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35201305›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Effectiveness of Enhanced Performance Feedback on Appropriate Use of Blood Transfusions: A Comparison of 2 Cluster Randomized Trials.

Simon J Stanworth, Rebecca Walwyn, John Grant-Casey, Suzanne Hartley, Lauren Moreau, Fabiana Lorencatto, Jill Francis, Natalie Gould, Nick Swart, Megan Rowley and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors.

Simon J StanworthNHS Blood and Transplant, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rebecca WalwynClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute for Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
John Grant-CaseyNHS Blood and Transplant, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Suzanne HartleyClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute for Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Lauren MoreauClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute for Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Fabiana LorencattoDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jill FrancisSchool of Health Sciences City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Natalie GouldSchool of Health Sciences City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Nick SwartDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Megan RowleyScottish National Blood Transfusion Service, Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Steve MorrisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jeremy GrimshawFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Amanda FarrinClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute for Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Robbie FoyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
AFFINITIE Collaborators

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1210-12010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Auditing and feedback are frequently used to improve patient care. However, it remains unclear how to optimize feedback effectiveness for the appropriate use of treatments such as blood transfusion, a common but costly procedure that is more often overused than underused. Objective: To evaluate 2 theoretically informed feedback interventions to improve the appropriate use of blood transfusions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two sequential, linked 2 × 2 cluster randomized trials were performed in hospitals in the UK participating in national audits of transfusion for perioperative anemia and management of hematological disorders. Data were collected for a surgical trial from October 1, 2014, to October 31, 2016, with follow-up completed on October 31, 2016. Data were collected for a hematological trial through follow-up from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017. Trial data were analyzed from November 1, 2016, to June 1, 2019. Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to standard content or enhanced content to improve feedback clarity and usability and to standard support or enhanced support for staff to act on feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was appropriateness of transfusions audited at 12 months. Secondary end points included volume of transfusions (aiming for reductions at patient and cluster levels) and transfusion-related adverse events and reactions. Results: One hundred thirty-five of 152 eligible clusters participated in the surgical audit (2714 patients; mean [SD] age, 74.9 [14.0] years; 1809 women [66.7%]), and 134 of 141 participated in the hematological audit (4439 patients; median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-80.0] years; 2641 men [59.5%]). Fifty-seven of 69 clusters (82.6%) in the surgical audit randomized to enhanced content downloaded reports compared with 52 of 66 clusters (78.8%) randomized to standard reports. Fifty-nine of 68 clusters (86.8%) randomized to enhanced support logged onto the toolkit. The proportion of patients with appropriate transfusions was 0.184 for standard content and 0.176 for enhanced content (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [97.5% CI, 0.61-1.36]) and 0.181 for standard support and 0.180 for enhanced support (adjusted OR, 1.05 [97.5% CI, 0.68-1.61]). For the hematological audit, 53 of 66 clusters (80.3%) randomized to enhanced content downloaded the reports compared with 53 of 68 clusters (77.9%) randomized to standard content. Forty-nine of 67 clusters sites (73.1%) assigned to enhanced support logged into the toolkit at least once. The proportion of patients with appropriate transfusions was 0.744 for standard content and 0.714 for enhanced content (adjusted OR, 0.81 [97.5% CI, 0.56-1.12]), and 0.739 for standard support and 0.721 for enhanced support (adjusted OR, 0.96 [97.5% CI, 0.67-1.38]). Conclusions and Relevance: This comparison of cluster randomized trials found that interventions to improve feedback usability and guide local action were no more effective than standard feedback in increasing the appropriate use of blood transfusions. Auditing and feedback delivered at scale is a complex and costly program; therefore, effective responses may depend on developing robust local quality improvement arrangements, which can be evaluated using rigorous experimental designs embedded within national programs. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN15490813.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAgedAged, 80 and overBlood TransfusionFeedbackFemaleHealth Services MisuseHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35201305
PMCPMC8874348

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.