ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2026
Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intraoperative cell salvage for patients with placenta previa during cesarean section: a retrospective comparison analysis.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate whether intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) and retransfusion reduce allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) requirement and treatment costs in patients with placenta previa undergoing cesarean section. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 102 pregnant women who underwent ICS and 113 women who did not. The primary outcomes included ABT rate, ABT volume, routine blood tests, and coagulation function before and 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the costs of all blood component transfusions. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for ABT. Results: No statistically significant difference in ABT rate was found between the ICS and control groups. Linear regression analysis revealed that estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were independent risk factors for ABT. Subgroup analysis showed that the overall ABT rate, median ABT volume and median RBC values were significantly different between the ICS group and the control group for patients with EBL <800 mL; in patients with EBL >800 mL, the median RBC transfusion was significantly lower in the ICS group. The median ABT cost was significantly higher in the ICS group than in the control group in patients with EBL <800 mL and operative time <67 min, but no significant difference was observed in other subgroups. Postoperatively, the median hemoglobin and hematocrit levels were significantly higher in the ICS group than in the control group. Conclusions: ICS may be recommended for placenta previa patients who undergo cesarean section for more than 1 h.
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.