MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The true risk of blood transfusion after nephrectomy for renal masses: a population‐based study

2013· article· en· W1831694698 on OpenAlexaff
Gino J. Vricella, Antonio Finelli, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Lee Ponsky, Robert Abouassaly

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrectomyBlood transfusionPopulationRetrospective cohort studyComorbidityRenal functionSurgeryInternal medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? There is a paucity of population‐based analyses of expected outcomes after renal surgery for kidney cancer. Reported blood transfusion rates after nephrectomy show considerable variability, probably as a result of the referral patterns that influence reports from tertiary academic medical centres. With emerging data on the inferior outcomes in patients undergoing allogeneic blood transfusion, we aimed to evaluate the patient, surgeon and hospital factors that influence the receipt of a blood transfusion after nephrectomy. A more detailed understanding of these factors may help in preoperative patient counselling and informed consent. Objective To examine blood transfusion rates after nephrectomy for renal masses at the population‐level. Patients and Methods We performed a population‐based, retrospective observational study using a national discharge abstract database. The study cohort consisted of 10 902 patients who were treated by radical nephrectomy ( RN ) or partial nephrectomy ( PN ) for a renal mass between 1 A pril 2003 and 31 M arch 2008. The association between blood transfusion and various explanatory variables was examined using the chi‐squared test and multivariable logistic regression. Results The overall blood transfusion rate was 18.1%. Transfusions occurred after 28.2%, 12.7%, 9.2% and 8.6% of open RN , open PN , laparoscopic RN and laparoscopic PN , respectively ( P < 0.001). Transfusion rates were found to be strongly associated with age and comorbidity, such that patients aged <50 years with C harlson scores of 0 were transfused 11.2% and 14.5% of the time compared to 28.2% and 40.7% in patients aged ≥80 years with C harlson scores of ≥3, respectively ( P < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, age ( P < 0.001), C harlson score ( P < 0.001), procedure type ( P < 0.001), surgeon ( P < 0.001) and hospital volume quartile ( P < 0.001) were all found to be associated with the rate of blood transfusions, whereas year of surgery, sex and income quintile were not. Conclusions The transfusion rate after nephrectomy in general clinical practice is higher than that reported in the urological literature. Patient and provider factors appear to contribute to the considerable variability that exists in the observed transfusion rate. A more detailed understanding of these factors may help with respect to preoperative patient counselling and informed consent.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207