ArticleTransfusion2026
A global survey of blood transfusion practices for patients with sickle cell disease.
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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSickle cell disease (SCD) affects over 7 million people globally, with blood transfusion remaining a cornerstone of management. However, contemporary transfusion practices across diverse settings remain poorly characterized. We evaluated global transfusion practices for patients with SCD to identify gaps and inform resource prioritization. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey of clinicians and laboratory professionals providing transfusion support for SCD, distributed via email using three professional society's membership lists (July-September 2025). Variables included facility characteristics, pre-transfusion testing capabilities, antigen-matching strategies, transfusion modalities, and barriers to care, stratified by World Bank income classification.
resultsAfter excluding incomplete/duplicate responses, 102 facilities from 39 countries were analyzed; 95 actively treated patients with SCD. Facilities were predominantly public (73%), with 46% in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Routine newborn screening was performed by 33% overall (48% high-income countries [HICs] vs. 0% low-income). While ABO/RhD typing was nearly universal, antibody screening was available in only 72% of facilities (0% low-income, 47% LMICs, 98% HICs). Prophylactic RBC antigen matching was performed by 46% (18% LMICs vs. 70% HICs), primarily limited to Rh(CcEe) and K. Automated RBC exchange was available in 44% overall (0% low-income, 25% LMICs, 73% HICs); among facilities with exchange capability, 83% of HICs versus 36% of LMICs could provide exchange within 24 h for acute indications. DISCUSSION: Pronounced income-related disparities exist in SCD transfusion support. Facilities in lower-income settings disproportionately lack antibody testing, prophylactic matching, and timely automated exchange. Targeted infrastructure investment and context-appropriate guidelines are essential for equitable care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42454634What 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.