ReviewInternational journal of general medicine2026
Perioperative Blood Management in General Surgery: Recent Advances, Current Limitations, and the Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence-A Narrative Review.
Review in International journal of general medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient blood management (PBM) is a patient-centered approach to blood use that aligns with modern medical practice. It is based on multidisciplinary collaboration and evidence-based medicine. Its aim is to improve clinical outcomes by correcting preoperative anemia, reducing perioperative blood loss, standardizing transfusion practices, and optimizing the management of coagulation function. Patients undergoing general surgery, particularly complex liver surgery or gastrointestinal cancer surgery, often face preoperative anemia, intraoperative bleeding, increased transfusion requirements, and postoperative coagulation abnormalities. These factors make perioperative blood management more complex. This narrative review searched PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for relevant studies published over the past 10 years. It summarizes recent advances, current limitations, and challenges in the clinical translation of perioperative blood management in general surgery. This review focuses on the assessment and management of preoperative anemia, bleeding control and hemostatic strategies, transfusion management, coagulation monitoring, and thrombotic risk management. It also discusses recent advances and current limitations in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for risk prediction, clinical decision support, and individualized management. Current evidence suggests that PBM may help optimize perioperative care in general surgery. AI/ML may also support clinical decision-making by predicting bleeding risk, estimating transfusion requirements, and stratifying thrombotic risk. However, studies specifically focusing on general surgery patients remain limited. Most available evidence comes from cardiac surgery, orthopedics, or other surgical populations. In addition, current prediction models still have several limitations, including insufficient external validation, a lack of prospective evaluation, and limited interpretability. Therefore, these models should currently be used only as tools to support clinical judgment. Therefore, future studies should include more multicenter prospective research in general surgery populations. AI/ML-assisted decision support should also be further explored within standardized PBM pathways to improve the precision and standardization of perioperative blood management in general surgery.
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.