Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39054473›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2024

Effect of post-storage filters vs. pre-storage filters for leukoreduction of blood components on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Natasha Dejigov Monteiro da Silva, Youko Nukui, Juliana Takahashi, Diná de Almeida Lopes Monteiro da Cruz, Lilia de Souza Nogueira

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The 2024 international survey of platelet products and practice.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Natasha Dejigov Monteiro da SilvaHCFMUSP: Universidade de São Paulo Hospital das Clínicas, Av. Dr. Ovídio Pires de Campos 225, Cerqueira César, São Paulo (SP), Brazil. nadejigov@alumni.usp.br.ORCID 0000-0002-2718-3885
Youko NukuiHCFMUSP: Universidade de São Paulo Hospital das Clínicas, Av. Dr. Ovídio Pires de Campos 225, Cerqueira César, São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
Juliana TakahashiUniversidade de São Paulo Escola de Enfermagem, São Paulo, Brazil.
Diná de Almeida Lopes Monteiro da CruzUniversidade de São Paulo Escola de Enfermagem, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lilia de Souza NogueiraUniversidade de São Paulo Escola de Enfermagem, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeukoreduction has been used to limit the risk of adverse events. The most commonly used methodology is filtration (pre- or post-storage). However, whether pre-storage filtration is better than post-storage filtration needs to be clearly defined, particularly for countries that still use post-storage filtration. This study aimed to synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of pre-storage filters compared with post-storage filters for transfusion reactions, for the occurrence of infections, for the length of hospital stay, and for the death of patients undergoing leukoreduced transfusion.

methodsWe searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (APA), Scopus (Elsevier), The Cochrane Library (J. Wiley), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), Embase (Elsevier), and LILACS (VHL) databases and gray literature for eligible studies in August 2020 and updated the search in October 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical assessment tools were applied to analyze the quality appraisal of the studies. GRADE was used to determine the certainty of the evidence.

resultsThe meta-analysis showed that pre-storage filtration was a protective factor for the occurrence of febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reaction in red blood cells (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-0.59) and platelet concentrate transfusions (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12-0.22). The same did not occur for post-surgical infection after platelet concentrate transfusions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65-1.04). Only one study analyzed the length of hospital stay and showed no significant difference between patients who received leukoreduced transfusions according to the type of filter used. According to the GRADE criteria, the certainty of the evidence for febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions was low for red blood cells and very low for platelet concentrate due to the high risk of bias. Infection was a low risk due to imprecision.

conclusionsThe results of this review showed that the certainty of recommending the best type of filter (pre- or post-storage) for the benefit of the outcomes analyzed is still fragile; therefore, more robust evidence is needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020192202.

Indexed as

FiltrationLeukocyte Reduction ProceduresBlood Component TransfusionBlood PreservationHumansLength of StayTransfusion ReactionEffectivenessLeukoreductionMeta-analysisPost-storage filterPre-storage filter

Identifiers

PMID39054473
PMCPMC11270929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.