ArticleBMJ open2025
Consent for transfusion: global practices, documentation and patient understanding - a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient involvement in healthcare has become increasingly important, not only as an expression of respect for autonomy but also as a means of empowering individuals to safeguard their care. In blood transfusion, informed consent is a critical tool for shared decision-making. This protocol outlines a scoping review to map how transfusion consent processes and forms are used globally and to characterise their key features. We aim to identify technologies used to obtain consent, evaluate compliance with international recommendations, describe practices in special populations and examine patients' and families' understanding of the consent process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, we will search PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science and Scopus; grey literature will be explored via Google Scholar and the Open Access Theses and Dissertations platform. No language or date restrictions will be applied. Reference lists of included studies will also be screened. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and chart data; disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Synthesis will be diagrammatic/tabular with structured narrative, reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: extension for Scoping Reviews. Where data allow, findings will be stratified by clinical setting. A stakeholder consultation with two transfusion medicine experts and two patient representatives will be undertaken to validate and refine interpretations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Only publicly available sources will be used; research ethics approval is not required. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NU69J.
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.