ArticleCritical care research and practice2026
Liberal Versus Restrictive Blood Transfusion Strategies in Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Critical care research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal Transfusion Thresholds in Patients with Acute Brain Injury: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Hemoglobin Trajectory Phenotypes and Neurological Outcomes in a Neurosurgical ICU Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Correlation between perioperative red blood cell transfusion strategy and 3-month neurological outcomes in patients undergoing craniotomy for traumatic brain injury.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Liberal Versus Restrictive Blood Transfusion Strategies in Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Critical care research and practice · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Neurocritical care patients, including those with traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intracerebral hemorrhage, often develop anemia, compromising brain oxygen delivery and increasing morbidity and mortality. Blood transfusion strategies, either liberal or restrictive, are commonly used to manage anemia in these patients, but the optimal approach remains unclear due to mixed results in existing studies. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception to December 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in adult neurocritical care patients. Outcomes included mortality, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), red blood cell (RBC) units transfused, sepsis, intensive care unit (ICU)/hospital length of stay, and secondary complications. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42025635426). Findings: The analysis included seven RCTs with 1941 patients. The restrictive strategy significantly reduced the number of RBC units transfused per patient (MD: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.08-3.64; Conclusion: Restrictive transfusion strategies are as effective as liberal strategies in terms of mortality and neurological complications, with additional benefits such as fewer RBC transfusions and lower sepsis rates. These findings support restrictive strategies as a safer approach to managing anemia in neurocritical care, though further research on long-term outcomes is needed.
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.