SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2025
Blood transfusion strategies for major bleeding in trauma.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blood transfusion strategies for major bleeding in trauma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Prehospital Transfusion With Red Blood Cells and Fresh Plasma in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- AI-Enabled Interpretation Guidance for Hemostasis Testing with TEGDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hallmarks of the multidimensional immune response to trauma in humans.Nature immunology · 2026Review
- Embracing complexity in transfusion research.Vox sanguinis · 2026Review
- Management of trauma-induced coagulopathy in the perioperative setting: What is the role of anesthesia?Transfusion · 2026Review
- A novel evaluation tool for combat trauma simulation: Delphi expert panel consensus report.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Article
- Severe trauma care: advances and future directions in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques and information technology support.Medical review (2021) · 2026Article
- Revised french military transfusion doctrine for large-scale combat operations: a consensus framework.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- ALM Resuscitation Without Transfusion Improves Platelet Function and Survival After Liver Injury and Uncontrolled Hemorrhage.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Hemostatic resuscitation in patients with trauma-induced coagulopathy: a narrative review.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Prehospital transfusion strategies in haemorrhagic shock.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Advances in cellular and molecular mechanisms of trauma-induced organ inflammation and dysfunction.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Viscoelastic Hemostatic Assays in the Management of Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy: A Clinical Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Blood substitutes: Basic science, translational studies and clinical trials.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Article
- Fluid Therapy in Pulmonary Disease: How Careful Do We Need to Be?Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
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
backgroundTrauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Research shows that haemorrhage and trauma-induced coagulopathy are reversible components of traumatic injury, if identified and treated early. Lack of consensus on definitions and transfusion strategies hinders the translation of this evidence into clinical practice.
objectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of transfusion strategies started within 24 hours of traumatic injury in adults (aged 16 years and over) with major bleeding. SEARCH
methodsCENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and three trial registers were searched on 20 November 2023. We also checked reference lists of included studies to identify any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (aged 16 years and over) receiving blood products for the management of bleeding within 24 hours of traumatic injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology to perform the review and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN
resultsWe included 18 RCTs with 5041 participants. Comparison 1: Prehospital transfusion strategies Five studies compared use of plasma (fresh frozen plasma (FFP) or lyophilised plasma) versus 'standard of care'. We are uncertain of the effect of plasma on all-cause mortality at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48 to 2.30; 3 studies, 279 participants; very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference between plasma and standard of care in all-cause mortality at 30 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.17; 3 studies, 664 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the results of one cluster-RCT that could not be included in our meta-analysis suggested that plasma may be associated with a lower risk of death at 30 days (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; 1 study, 481 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference between plasma and standard of care in the total number of thromboembolic events in 30 days (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67 to.2.27; 4 studies, 586 participants; low-certainty evidence). Comparison 2: In-hospital transfusion strategies Ten studies evaluated this comparison, seven providing usable data. The studies evaluated cryoprecitate (three studies); fixed-ratio blood component transfusion (three studies); fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (one study); lyophilised plasma (one study); leucoreduced red blood cells (one study); and a restrictive transfusion strategy (one study). All-cause mortality at 24 hours For all-cause mortality at 24 hours, there is probably no difference between: • cryoprecipitate plus a major haemorrhage protocol (MHP) versus MHP alone (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21; 1 study, 1577 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and • blood products (plasma:platelets:red blood cells (RBCs)) transfused in 1:1:1 ratio versus 1:1:2 ratio (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.08; 1 study, 680 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on all-cause mortality at 24 hours for: • blood products (RBCs:FFP) transfused in 1:1 ratio versus transfusion according to coagulation and full blood count results (Peto odds ratio (POR) 0.45, 0.17 to 1.22; 1 study, 434 participants; very low certainty evidence); and • lyophilised (FlyP) plasma versus FFP (POR 1.04, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.23; 1 study, 47 participants; very low certainty evidence); All-cause mortality at 30 days For all-cause mortality at 30 days, there is probably no difference between blood products (plasma:platelets:RBCs) transfused in a 1:1:1 ratio versus a 1:1:2 ratio (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; 1 study, 680 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between the following interventions in all-cause mortality at 30 days: • cryoprecipitate plus MHP versus MHP alone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.78; 2 studies, 1572 participants; low-certainty evidence); and •leucoreduced RBCs versus standard RBCs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.95; 1 study,55 participants; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on all-cause mortality at 30 days for: •lyophilised plasma versus FFP (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.02; 1 study, 47 participants; very low certainty evidence); and • blood products (plasma:platelets:RBCs) transfused in 1:1:1 ratio versus standard MHP (RR 2.25, 95% CI 0.90 to 5.62; 1 study, 69 participants; very low certainty evidence). Total number of thromboembolic events at 30 days There may be little to no difference between the following interventions for total thromboembolic events at 30 days: • cryoprecipitate plus MHP versus MHP alone (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.72; 2 studies, 1645 participants; low-certainty evidence); and • blood products (plasma:platelets:RBCs) transfused in 1:1:1 ratio versus 1:1:2 ratio (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; 1 study, 680 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on the total number of thromboembolic events at 30 days for: •blood products (plasma:platelets:RBCs) transfused in 1:1:1 ratio versus standard MHP (POR 6.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 68.35; 1 study, 69 participants; very low certainty evidence). Comparison 3: Whole blood versus individual blood products We are uncertain of the effect of modified (leucoreduced) whole blood versus blood products (RBCs:plasma) transfused in a 1:1 ratio on all-cause mortality at 24 hours (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.49) or 30 days (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.80) (1 study, 107 participants; very low certainty evidence). Comparison 4: Goal-directed blood transfusion strategy of viscoelastic haemostatic assay (VHA) versus conventional laboratory coagulation tests (CCT) to guide haemostatic therapy There may be little or no difference in all-cause mortality at 24 hours between VHA and CCT (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.35; 1 study, 396 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects on all-cause mortality at 30 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.17; 2 studies, 506 participants; very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference between VHA and CCT in total thromboembolic events at 30 days (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.18; 1 study 396 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS'
conclusionsOverall, there was little to no evidence of a difference between blood transfusion strategies for mortality or thromboembolic events. The studies covered a wide range of interventions, and the comparators and standard of care practice varied between trials, thereby limiting the pooling of data. Further research is needed.
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.