SynthesisBMJ open2025
Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion thresholds in acute acquired brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effects of liberal transfusion strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤90-100 g/L) compared with a restrictive strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤70-80 g/L) on long-term neurological functional outcome in anaemic adult patients with acute acquired brain injury (ABI).
designSystematic review and study-level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane from inception to 6 February 2025. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs enrolling patients with acute ABI and anaemia (haemoglobin ≤100 g/L), comparing a liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of RCTs and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was an unfavourable neurological functional outcome, using the Glasgow Outcome or modified Rankin scales.
resultsFive trials enrolling 2364 patients with acute ABI and anaemia were included in the primary analysis. Liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable neurological outcome (risk ratio (RR)=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95, high certainty). Liberal transfusion may reduce severe disability (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02, moderate certainty), and increase good recovery compared with restrictive transfusion (RR=1.29, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76, low certainty). We found no difference in the risk of most adverse events, including death. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I
conclusionsIn adults with acute ABI and anaemia, liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable outcome (high certainty) and possibly improves the chances of good recovery (low certainty) when compared with restrictive transfusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42025628732.
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.