SynthesisTransfusion2025
Prognostic models for prediction of perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in adult cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Transfusion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic models for prediction of perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in adult cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Transfusion · 2025Pooled it
- Single Cancer Center Experience on Patient Blood Management Eligibility in Oncological Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIdentifying cardiac surgical patients at risk of requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is crucial for optimizing their outcome. We critically appraised prognostic models preoperatively predicting perioperative exposure to RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery and summarized model performance.
methodsDesign: Systematic review and meta-analysis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies developing and/or externally validating models preoperatively predicting perioperative RBC transfusion in adult cardiac surgery. Information sources MEDLINE, CENTRAL & CDSR, Embase, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Risk of bias and applicability: Quality of reporting was assessed with the Transparent Reporting of studies on prediction models for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis adherence form, and risk of bias and applicability with the Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool. SYNTHESIS
methodsRandom-effects meta-analyses of concordance-statistics and total observed:expected ratios for models externally validated ≥5 times.
resultsNine model development, and 27 external validation studies were included. The average TRIPOD adherence score was 66.4% (range 44.1%-85.2%). All studies but 1 were rated high risk of bias. For TRUST and TRACK, the only models externally validated ≥5 times, summary c-statistics were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.84; 6 contributing studies) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.75; 5 contributing studies) respectively, and summary total observed:expected ratios were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71-1.05; 5 contributing studies) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.74-1.19; 5 contributing studies), respectively. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in all meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Future high quality external validation and model updating studies which strictly adhere to reporting guidelines, are warranted.
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.