ArticleScientific reports2025
Impact of red blood cell transfusion in massive burn: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transfusion requirements as a surrogate marker of mortality and morbidity in adults with severe burns: A retrospective cohort study.Turkish journal of surgery · 2025Article
- The Influence of Blood Transfusion Indexed to Patient Blood Volume on 5-Year Mortality After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting-An EuroSCORE II Adjusted Spline Regression Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood transfusions were frequently in massive burn patients, current studies focus on the trigger threshold of red blood cell transfusion, and few studies focus on the impact of red blood cell transfusion volume on patient outcomes. We initiated a multicenter cohort study to explore the impact of red blood cell transfusions volume on patient mortality. 379 patients in three centers were enrolled to the cohort. The extroperative and overall RBC transfusion in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group (p < 0.001), and this difference became insignificant within the operation (p = 0.312). RBC transfusion volume and mortality risk of patients was obviously not linear (p < 0.0001) and would be L-shaped, and the threshold would be 6U. 1:1propensity matching was used to adjust the burn area, full thickness burned area and inhalation injury. There was no significant difference in the outcome and bloodstream infection between the two groups, but the length of stay, length of stay in burn ICU and mechanical ventilation time of the low red blood cell group were significantly lower than those of the high red blood cell group. Our findings therefore support the approach of a restrictive transfusion strategy in severely burned patients. This also confirms the scientificity of restrictive transfusion strategy and suggests that unnecessary red blood cell transfusion should be avoided in clinic.
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.