ArticleTransfusion2026
How do we use smart blood refrigerators at our hospitals in North America?
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid, reliable, and safe access to blood products remains a persistent operational challenge in transfusion medicine, particularly in high-acuity and geographically dispersed clinical environments. Traditional centralized blood bank workflows may contribute to delays, increased laboratory workload, and risks associated with blood component transportation and storage. Smart blood refrigerators have emerged as an important strategy to support decentralized storage, controlled product access, and enhanced traceability; however, published data describing real-world implementation strategies and operational variability remain limited. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsTo characterize real-world adoption and use, we conducted a multi-institutional survey of North American institutions utilizing BloodTrack-integrated smart blood refrigerators. Survey findings were supplemented by targeted follow-up interviews representing a range of operational models and use cases.
resultsSurvey responses demonstrated substantial variability in deployment models, clinical workflows, and blood component storage practices. Smart refrigerators supported a wide range of transfusion service functions across diverse clinical environments, reflecting differing institutional, operational, and patient-care priorities. Commonly reported benefits included shorter time to transfusion, improved workflow efficiency, enhanced traceability, reduced staffing burden, and support for patient-specific blood product selection. Reported barriers primarily involved informatics integration, labeling workflows, serologic eligibility constraints, and training considerations.
conclusionThese findings illustrate how smart blood refrigerators are used across diverse transfusion service environments, highlighting the operational flexibility of these systems and providing practical insights for institutions seeking to implement, optimize, or expand smart refrigerator-supported transfusion workflows.
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.