SynthesisScientific reports2023
Potential benefits of restrictive transfusion in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical practice patterns in the pre-endoscopic management of individuals presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of an international survey.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Article
- Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Cohort of 98 Cases, Historical Comparison, and Updated Management Algorithm.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of Red Pack Cell Transfusion Before or After Endoscopy on Mortality in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Machine learning for the prediction of blood transfusion risk during or after mitral valve surgery: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Construction of a predictive model for rebleeding risk in upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients based on clinical indicators such asFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Hemoglobin decrease predicts untoward outcomes better than severity of anemia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy in acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is debated. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of restrictive compared to liberal transfusion strategies in the GIB population. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials on 15.01.2022 without restrictions. Studies comparing lower to higher RBC transfusion thresholds after GIB were eligible. We used the random effect model and calculated pooled mean differences (MD), risk ratios (RR) and proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to calculate the overall effect size. The search yielded 3955 hits. All seven eligible studies reported on the upper GIB population. Restrictive transfusion did not increase the in-hospital- (RR: 0.94; CI 0.46, 1.94) and 30-day mortality (RR: 0.71; CI 0.35, 1.45). In-hospital- and 28 to 45-day rebleeding rate was also not higher with the restrictive modality (RR: 0.67; CI 0.30, 1.50; RR:0.75; CI 0.49, 1.16, respectively). Results of individual studies showed a lower rate of transfusion reactions and post-transfusion intervention if the transfusion was started at a lower threshold. A haemoglobin threshold > 80 g/L may result in a higher untoward outcome rate. In summary, restrictive transfusion does not appear to lead to a higher rate of significant clinical endpoints. The optimal restrictive transfusion threshold should be further investigated.
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.