Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37487676›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Study protocol of the WashT Trial: transfusion with washed versus unwashed red blood cells to reduce morbidity and mortality in infants born less than 28 weeks' gestation - a multicentre, blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

Michael J Stark, Carmel T Collins, Chad C Andersen, Tara M Crawford, Thomas R Sullivan, Jana Bednarz, Rachael Morton, Denese C Marks, Mbathio Dieng, Louise S Owen and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael J StarkDepartment of Neonatal Medicine, The Women's and Children's Hospital Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Michael.stark@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1835-8679
Carmel T CollinsSAHMRI Women and Kids Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Chad C AndersenDepartment of Neonatal Medicine, The Women's and Children's Hospital Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Tara M CrawfordDepartment of Neonatal Medicine, The Women's and Children's Hospital Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Thomas R SullivanSAHMRI Women and Kids Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6930-5406
Jana BednarzSAHMRI Women and Kids Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Rachael MortonNational Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Denese C MarksResearch and Development, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory, Teams, New South Wales, Australia.
Mbathio DiengNational Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Louise S OwenNewborn Research Centre, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gillian OpieDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Javeed TravadiDepartment of Paediatrics, Royal Darwin Hospital, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia.
Kenneth TanMonah Newborn, Monash Children's Hospital, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Scott MorrisCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AUWomen's and Children's Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AUAustralian Red Cross Lifeblood · AUAustralian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUFlinders University · AURoyal Darwin Hospital · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany extremely preterm newborns develop anaemia requiring a transfusion, with most receiving three to five transfusions during their admission. While transfusions save lives, the potential for transfusion-related adverse outcomes is an area of growing concern. Transfusion is an independent predictor of death and is associated with increased morbidity, length of hospital stay, risk of infection and immune modulation. The underlying mechanisms include adverse pro-inflammatory and immunosuppressive responses. Evidence supports an association between transfusion of washed red cells and fewer post-transfusion complications potentially through removal of chemokines, lipids, microaggregates and other biological response modifiers. However, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of washed cells have not been determined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial of washed versus unwashed red cells. Infants <28 weeks' gestation requiring a transfusion will be enrolled. Transfusion approaches will be standardised within each study centre and will occur as soon as possible with a recommended fixed transfusion volume of 15 mL/kg whenever the haemoglobin is equal to or falls below a predefined restrictive threshold, or when clinically indicated. The primary outcome is a composite of mortality and/or major morbidity to first discharge home, defined as one or more of the following: physiologically defined bronchopulmonary dysplasia; unilateral or bilateral retinopathy of prematurity grade >2, and; necrotising enterocolitis stage ≥2. To detect a 10% absolute reduction in the composite outcome from 69% with unwashed red blood cell (RBCs) to 59% with washed RBCs with 90% power, requires a sample size of 1124 infants (562 per group). Analyses will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis with a prespecified statistical analysis plan. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Women's and Children's Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/12/WCHN/55). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000237785 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Indexed as

Child HealthWomen's HealthAustraliaBlood TransfusionChildErythrocytesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood bank & transfusion medicineNeonatal intensive & critical careNEONATOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID37487676
PMCPMC10373745
OpenAlexW4385211770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.