SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in acute coronary syndrome and anemia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Hemoglobin Thresholds for Blood Transfusions in Oncology Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.Journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Erythrocytes as immunomodulators in trauma: orchestrating clearance pathways, inflammation, and organ injury.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- A Predictive Model for Anemia and Coronary Heart Disease Based on Bidirectional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization and Machine Learning.Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is uncertain whether a liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy is superior to a restrictive approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and anemia. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies in ACS patients with concurrent anemia. Results: Five RCTs (4,510 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the liberal and restrictive RBC transfusion strategy groups in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68-1.21; Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that a liberal RBC transfusion strategy reduced the risk of MI and increased the risk of acute lung injury but did not affect other clinical outcomes compared to a restrictive approach in patients with mainly acute MI and anemia. New large-scale multicenter RCTs are required to confirm or refute our findings and provide more reliable results. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42024506844).
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.