ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2026
[Perioperative blood management in Jehova's Witnesses].
Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perforated jejunal diverticulitis in a Jehovah's Witness complicated by postoperative haemorrhage: a case report of successful bloodless management.Journal of surgical case reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJehova's Witnesses refuse the administration of allogenic blood products for religious reasons. This stance represents a special challenge for the perioperative management and requires individualized ethically sensitive and medically founded strategies. In this respect patient blood management (PBM) provides a structured and evidence-based approach for optimization of the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative care.
objectiveDescription of the current medical, ethical and legal procedure for the management of patients who refuse blood transfusions exemplified by Jehova's Witnesses and presentation of a standardized clarification model. MATERIAL AND
methodsNarrative overview of current recommendations and guidelines on preoperative treatment of anemia, intraoperative coagulation treatment, autotransfusion and the legal framework of action. In addition, a questionnaire on differentiated clarification developed at the University of Bonn is presented.
resultsA timely structured management of anemia, the application of viscoelastic point of care diagnostics and the differentiated use of autologous procedures, such as mechanical autotransfusion, enable a safe perioperative treatment even in cases of refusal of allogenic blood transfusion. Legal aspects underline the binding to patient advance directives, particularly in adults able to provide informed consent. For children, the child's welfare is prioritized in emergency cases. The clarification form presented reduces uncertainties and strengthens the interdisciplinary decision making.
conclusionAn individualized PBM concept represents an effective and ethically tenable strategy for the perioperative treatment of patients who refuse blood transfusions. It combines medical safety with respecting patient autonomy.
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.