ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Efficacy of a problem, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO)-based perioperative blood management plan developed for patients undergoing long-segment lumbar spine posterior surgery.
Article in European journal of medical research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a perioperative blood management plan based on the problem, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) model for long-segment lumbar spine posterior surgery.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 51 patients who needed long-segment posterior lumbar spine surgery at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University Department of Spinal Surgery from July 2020 to June 2022 were included in the control group, while 51 patients who needed long-segment posterior lumbar spine surgery from July 2021 to June 2022 were selected as the observation group. Patients in the control group received conventional blood management, while those in the observation group were additionally administered an evidence-based perioperative blood management plan. We compared the intervention outcomes in both the groups.
resultsPatients in the observation group demonstrated significantly higher postoperative hemoglobin levels and hematocrit at various time points compared to those in the control group (P < 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and average volume of allogeneic blood transfused per recipient, as well as the number and frequency of allogeneic blood transfusions, were significantly lower in the observation group (P < 0.05). The duration of surgical drain placement and postoperative hospital stay were notably shorter in the observation group (P < 0.05). The two groups did not differ significantly in the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe implementation of a perioperative blood management plan was effective in reducing the total blood loss and transfusion volume in the perioperative period, improving hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, facilitating earlier removal of surgical drains, and accelerating patient discharge.
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.