SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Red blood cell transfusion in neurocritical patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundAnemia is a prevalent complication in neurocritical patients and contributes to secondary brain damage by diminishing the oxygen supply to the brain. Although red blood cell transfusions may enhance cerebral oxygen delivery, whether this intervention improves patient outcomes remains unclear.
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE (PubMed) from inception to January 26, 2025. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing liberal versus restrictive RBC transfusion strategies in neurocritical patients were included in this analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at discharge.
resultsA total of 5579 bibliographic citations were identified. After reviewing the title, abstract, and full text, 8 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. The combined results showed no significant difference in mortality at discharge (20.5% for restrictive strategy vs. 20.8% for liberal strategy, RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.26, I
conclusionsCombining our findings, this systemic review suggests that while both transfusion strategies had similar impacts on mortality outcomes, the liberal strategy may offer a better prognosis in terms of long-term recovery and a reduced risk of sepsis.
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.