MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978203080 · doi:10.1186/cc11293

Hemoglobin levels and transfusions in neurocritically ill patients: a systematic review of comparative studies

2012· review· en· W1978203080 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Desjardins, Alexis F. Turgeon, Marie‐Hélène Tremblay, François Lauzier, Ryan Zarychanski, Amélie Boutin, Lynne Moore, Lauralyn McIntyre, Shane English, Andrea Rigamonti, Jacques Lacroix, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illIntensive care medicineHemoglobinEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Accumulating evidence suggests that, in critically ill patients, a lower hemoglobin transfusion threshold is safe. However, the optimal hemoglobin level and associated transfusion threshold remain unknown in neurocritically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies (randomized and nonrandomized) to evaluate the effect of hemoglobin levels on mortality, neurologic function, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and multiple organ failure in adult and pediatric neurocritically ill patients. We searched MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. Studies focusing on any neurocritical care conditions were included. Data are presented by using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Among 4,310 retrieved records, six studies met inclusion criteria (n = 537). Four studies were conducted in traumatic brain injury (TBI), one in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and one in a mixed population of neurocritically ill patients. The minimal hemoglobin levels or transfusion thresholds ranged from 7 to 10 g/dl in the lower-Hb groups and from 9.3 to 11.5 g/dl in the higher-Hb groups. Three studies had a low risk of bias, and three had a high risk of bias. No effect was observed on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or multiple organ failure. In studies reporting on length of stay (n = 4), one reported a significant shorter ICU stay (mean, -11.4 days (95% confidence interval, -16.1 to -6.7)), and one, a shorter hospital stay (mean, -5.7 days (-10.3 to -1.1)) in the lower-Hb groups, whereas the other two found no significant association. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to confirm or refute a difference in effect between lower- and higher-Hb groups in neurocritically ill patients. Considering the lack of evidence regarding long-term neurologic functional outcomes and the high risk of bias of half the studies, no recommendation can be made regarding which hemoglobin level to target and which associated transfusion strategy (restrictive or liberal) to favor in neurocritically ill patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations84
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207