Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36204671›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2022

Thresholds for blood transfusion in extremely preterm infants: A review of the latest evidence from two large clinical trials.

Michael P Meyer, Kristin L O'Connor, Jill H Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decreasing packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions in neonates through quality improvement.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael P MeyerNeonatal Unit, KidzFirst, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kristin L O'ConnorNeonatal Unit, KidzFirst, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jill H MeyerDepartment of Biomedicine and Medical Diagnostics, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Auckland University of Technology · NZMiddlemore Hospital · NZUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are two recently completed large randomized clinical trials of blood transfusions in the preterm infants most at risk of requiring them. Liberal and restrictive strategies were compared with composite primary outcome measures of death and neurodevelopmental impairment. Infants managed under restrictive guidelines fared no worse in regard to mortality and neurodevelopment in early life. The studies had remarkably similar demographics and used similar transfusion guidelines. In both, there were fewer transfusions in the restrictive arm. Nevertheless, there were large differences between the studies in regard to transfusion exposure with almost 3 times the number of transfusions per participant in the transfusion of prematures (TOP) study. Associated with this, there were differences between the studies in various outcomes. For example, the combined primary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment was more likely to occur in the TOP study and the mortality rate itself was considerably higher. Whilst the reasons for these differences are likely multifactorial, it does raise the question as to whether they could be related to the transfusions themselves? Clearly, every effort should be made to reduce exposure to transfusions and this was more successful in the Effects of Transfusion Thresholds on Neurocognitive Outcomes (ETTNO) study. In this review, we look at factors which may explain these transfusion differences and the differences in outcomes, in particular neurodevelopment at age 2 years. In choosing which guidelines to follow, centers using liberal guidelines should be encouraged to adopt more restrictive ones. However, should centers with more restrictive guidelines change to ones similar to those in the studies? The evidence for this is less compelling, particularly given the wide range of transfusion exposure between studies. Individual centers already using restrictive guidelines should assess the validity of the findings in light of their own transfusion experience. In addition, it should be remembered that the study guidelines were pragmatic and acceptable to a large number of centers. The major focus in these guidelines was on hemoglobin levels which do not necessarily reflect tissue oxygenation. Other factors such as the level of erythropoiesis should also be taken into account before deciding whether to transfuse.

Indexed as

blood transfusionhemoglobin thresholdslatest evidencepretermreview

Identifiers

PMID36204671
PMCPMC9530179
OpenAlexW4296389157

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.