ArticleTransfusion2026
Red blood cell transfusion thresholds in acute leukemia: Current practice and physician perspectives from a national survey.
Article in Transfusion, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRed blood cell (RBC) transfusions are part of essential supportive therapy in patients with acute leukemia, where patients often present with anemia and thrombocytopenia. Together these cytopenias increase bleeding risk; however, optimal hemoglobin (Hb) thresholds for RBC transfusion remain undefined, and current recommendations for restrictive strategies (<7 g/dL) are based on low-certainty, indirect evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA national web-based survey was distributed to 43 physicians (24 centers, Canada) to assess current RBC transfusion practice in patients with acute leukemia, perceptions of a liberal threshold (11 g/dL) in the context of a clinical trial, and feasibility considerations. The survey included categorical responses and open-text fields.
resultsOf 38 eligible physicians, 34 responded (89%). For stable, non-bleeding patients receiving induction chemotherapy, 27/34 (79%) used a Hb threshold of 7 g/dL, 6/34 (18%) used 8 g/dL, and 1/34 (3%) used 9 g/dL. Fourteen (14/34, 41%) respondents indicated that a Hb threshold of 11 g/dL was reasonable for the liberal arm of a clinical trial, while 20/34 (59%) did not. For such a trial, 32/34 (94%) would consider enrolling patients in the trial and 2/34 (6%) would not. DISCUSSION: A Hb threshold of 7 g/dL was most reported as standard-of-care. Most respondents supported enrolling their patients in a clinical trial comparing a liberal RBC transfusion strategy of 11 g/dL with standard-of-care. The feasibility of 11 g/dL should be tested with clear justification, appropriate study outcomes, and attention to safety risks and resource demands.
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.