ArticleTransfusion2025
Transfusion probability as an alternative measure of lab-guided medical decision-making.
Article in Transfusion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunities for improving platelet transfusion practice: A large retrospective audit across 22 hospitals.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Plasma transfusion practice: A five-year audit of plasma transfusion at 23 hospitals.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Rising transfusion rates amidst stable blood supply: A Canadian perspective on emerging challenges for blood operators.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Transfusion probability as an alternative measure of lab-guided medical decision-making.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Evaluating variability in use of intravenous albumin in patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
- Impact of 1- and 2-unit red blood cell transfusions on continuously monitored vital signs: a longitudinal study.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangueObservational
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
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical decision to transfuse is strongly influenced by laboratory results. Analysis of transfusion decision-making through pre-transfusion laboratory results (e.g. pre-transfusion hemoglobin) is a common yet misleading approach to studying transfusion practice. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe introduce "Transfusion Probability", an alternative method overcoming many limitations of pre-transfusion lab result analyses. Under this approach, we estimate the probability of transfusion after results at a specific value (e.g. hemoglobin 7.4 g/dL) or in a range of values (e.g. 7.0-7.9 g/dL) using the proportion of tests followed by transfusion. We provide a comprehensive methodology for causal inference on the effect of patient characteristics and other variables of interest.
resultsAnalyses using pre-transfusion and transfusion probability were compared through a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients (N = 525,032). We found red blood cell transfusion probabilities of 76.2% in the 6.0-6.9 g/dL, 18.9% in the 7.0-7.9 g/dL, and 4.5% in the 8.0-8.9 g/dL hemoglobin ranges. After confounder adjustment, gastrointestinal bleeding patients were more likely to be transfused, with risk differences ranging from 6.6% in the 8.0-8.9 g/dL range to 13.8% in the 6.0-6.9 g/dL range. Pre-transfusion hemoglobin results showed minimal differences between gastrointestinal bleeding patients and other patients in unadjusted (0.00 g/dL) and adjusted analyses (-0.03 g/dL). DISCUSSION: In contrast to pre-transfusion result analysis, transfusion probability offers a nuanced account of transfusion practice and natural comparisons between patient groups. Wider use of our approach can provide actionable insights for clinical decision-making.
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.