ArticleNIHR open research2024
Assessment of routine pre-operative group and save testing in patients undergoing cholecystectomy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in NIHR open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Substantial international variation in the cost of blood group and save and crossmatch: A systematic review.British journal of haematology · 2026Pooled it
- Routine Group-and-Save (G+S) Testing Prior to Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A 10-Year Single-Centre Review.Cureus · 2025Article
- Preoperative Group and Save Tests in Elective and Emergency Cholecystectomies: An Economic and Environmental Burden.Cureus · 2025Article
- Cutting Costs and Carbon: Re-evaluating Routine Group and Save Testing for Appendicectomies.Cureus · 2025Article
- Assessment of routine pre-operative group and save testing in patients undergoing cholecystectomy: a retrospective cohort study.NIHR open research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Routine group and save (G&S) testing is frequently performed prior to cholecystectomy, despite growing evidence that a targeted approach is safe and avoids unnecessary investigations. This retrospective cohort study explored frequency of testing in our unit, rates of peri-operative blood transfusion and pre-operative risk factors for requiring transfusion. Methods: Health records of 453 consecutive adults who underwent cholecystectomy in a UK NHS trust were reviewed for blood transfusion up to 30 days post-operatively. We compared the need for transfusion against patient demographics, indication and urgency of surgery, and the number of prior emergency hospital attendances with gallstone complications. Logistic regression determined whether prior attendances with complications of gallstones independently predicted the need for transfusion. Results: Peri-operative blood transfusions within 30 days of operation occurred in 1.1% of cases, with no requirement for uncrossmatched blood. Patients who received a blood transfusion tended to have higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades ( Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that pre-operative G&S testing prior to cholecystectomy is not routinely required. Increased frequency of prior emergency hospital attendances with gallstone complications and co-morbidities associated with coagulopathies were pre-operative risk factors for post-operative blood transfusion. More selective testing could provide large financial savings for health institutions without compromising patient safety.
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.