ArticleTransfusion2024
Correlation of the Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test with clinical transfusion practice.
Article in Transfusion, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric transfusion camp: Developing, piloting and evaluation of a Canadian national pediatric transfusion medicine curriculum.Transfusion · 2026Article
- A quality improvement initiative to reduce inappropriate plasma transfusions across community hospitals in the Niagara region.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Correlation of the Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test with clinical transfusion practice.Transfusion · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is uncertain how transfusion knowledge translates to practice. The purpose of the study was to determine if higher scores on a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test were associated with transfusion order appropriateness. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsEligible participants included postgraduate trainees and faculty physicians who had prescribed at least four transfusion orders in the preceding 6 months at two hospitals. Participant data and knowledge were collected using a web-based questionnaire with a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment tool. The most recent 4-10 consecutive transfusion orders per prescriber were independently dually adjudicated for appropriateness based on published criteria. The primary outcome was the correlation between the score on six questions on red blood cells (RBCs), platelets (PLTs), and plasma from the validated test and the percentage order appropriateness. Generalized linear regression was conducted to determine if factors (sex, specialty, participation in Transfusion Camp, previous transfusion education, self-rated knowledge) were associated with appropriate orders.
resultsSeventy-four participants (45 trainees, 29 faculty; 31 females, 43 males) completed the test. Median score was 66.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 50.0, 83.3) for six questions on RBCs, PLTs, and plasma transfusions. Of 546 transfusion orders adjudicated, appropriateness was 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.9%-93.0%). The correlation between prescriber test scores and order appropriateness was very weak (r = -.08). In multivariable analysis, female prescribers (p = .02) and beginner (vs. intermediate) self-rated knowledge (p = .01) were associated with higher transfusion appropriateness.
conclusionTransfusion knowledge test scores did not correlate with order appropriateness. Factors other than knowledge are key to understanding how to improve appropriate blood use.
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.