SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
Patient Blood Management: a systematic review of current international guidelines.
Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient Blood Management (PBM) is a multidisciplinary strategy to optimise patient outcomes by preserving autologous blood and reducing unnecessary transfusion. Although PBM initiatives exist worldwide, the consistency of national guideline recommendations remains unclear. This review compared international PBM programmes and explored reasons for variation.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. In March 2024, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for publications from the past 20 years, supplemented by governmental and institutional sources. Guidelines were assessed using the International Centre for Allied Health Evidence checklist. Laws, nationally implemented guidelines, or documents with ministerial involvement were included for a comparative text analysis if they addressed defined PBM elements, were freely accessible, and met quality criteria. The review was registered on PROSPERO and completed in 2025.
resultsForty national and institutional guidelines were analysed. The greatest variability concerned strategies to reduce diagnostic blood loss. In contrast, most other PBM domains showed substantial agreement, particularly regarding restrictive transfusion strategies, most defined by a haemoglobin threshold of 7 g dl
conclusionsNational guidelines on Patient Blood Management remain fragmented, as comprehensive policy frameworks and multidisciplinary coordination are lacking. Greater harmonisation and structured change management are required to support wider global adoption of PBM. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: CRD420251032664 (PROSPERO).
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.