ArticleTransfusion2025
A national database review of whole blood use among females of childbearing potential experiencing traumatic hemorrhage.
Article in Transfusion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe use of low-titer O whole blood (LTOWB) for traumatic hemorrhage is growing. Most LTOWB for use in adults is RhD-positive, which presents potential risks to females of childbearing potential (FCP); however, data on practice patterns are lacking. We sought to assess the use of LTOWB among FCPs compared to similarly aged males in facilities with documented LTOWB capabilities.
methodsWe compared FCP (females 15-50 years of age) to similarly aged males (or sex unclassified/undocumented) who were included in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from 2020 to 2022. This database records transfusion volumes administered within the first 4 h after admission and patient demographics. We compared LTOWB use among FCPs versus similarly aged males using descriptive, inferential, and multivariable statistics.
resultsThere were 79,298 that met inclusion for this analysis. There were 16,823 (21%) FCPs, of whom, 2759/16,823 (16%) received any volume of LTOWB compared to 16,310/62,475 (26%) of the males. Furthermore, among LTOWB recipients, the median (interquartile range) volume administered to FCPs was 1162 mL (500-1000) compared to 1352 mL (500-1000, p = .003) for males. In our multivariable logistic regression analysis, males had a higher odds for the receipt of LTOWB compared to FCPs (odds ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.68-1.84) after adjusting for age, mechanism of injury, and composite injury severity score. These findings persisted on sensitivity testing.
conclusionsMales were more likely than FCPs to receive LTOWB during trauma resuscitation in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. The reasons for such differences require elucidation in future prospective studies.
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.