Pre-operative autologous donation for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have prompted re-consideration of the indications for the transfusion of allogeneic red cells (blood from an unrelated donor), and a range of techniques designed to minimise transfusion requirements. OBJECTIVES: To examine the evidence for the efficacy of pre-operative autologous blood donation (PAD) in reducing the need for peri-operative allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. SEARCH STRATEGY: Articles were identified by: computer searches of OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents (to March 2001) and web sites of international health technology assessment agencies (to January 2001). References in the identified trials were checked and authors contacted to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to PAD, or to a control group who did not receive the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed using criteria proposed by Schulz et al (1995) and Jadad et al (1996). The principle outcomes were: the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red blood cells, and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review. MAIN RESULTS: Overall PAD reduced the risk of receiving an allogeneic blood transfusion by a relative 63% (RR=0.37: 95%CI:0.26,0.54). The absolute reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion was 43.8% (RD=-0.438: 95%CI: -0.607,-0.268). In contrast the results show that the risk of receiving any blood transfusion (allogeneic and/or autologous) is actually increased by pre-operative autologous blood donation (RR=1.29: 95%CI: 1.12,1.48). Trials were unblinded and allocation concealment was not described in 87.5% of the trials. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although the trials of PAD showed a reduction in the need for allogeneic blood the methodological quality of the trials was poor and the overall transfusion rates (allogeneic and/or autologous) in these trials were high, and were increased by recruitment into the PAD arms of the trials. This raises questions about the true benefit of PAD. In the absence of large, high quality trials using clinical endpoints, it is not possible to say whether the benefits of PAD outweigh the harms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".