The cost of allogeneic red blood cells – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several reports suggest that the cost of RBCs may have risen over time, but there exists very little published evidence of that. The objective was to determine whether published studies documenting cost data on RBCs suggest an increase over time and to assess the quality of cost studies. We used the terms 'cost', 'allogeneic/allogenic' and 'blood' to identify cost studies between 1966 and 2002 from Medline, ISIesource and Ingenta electronic databases. Furthermore, we manually searched a number of transfusion and health economics journals for completeness. We included studies that used an established methodology and conducted an economic evaluation using primary/secondary cost data to calculate the cost of RBCs and RBC transfusion. Studies without allogeneic RBCs as comparator were excluded. Two individuals independently reviewed the studies and included studies upon reaching a consensus. Fourteen studies qualified the selection criteria and were included in the review. Ten studies were identified from Medline, two from Ingenta, one from ISIesource and one was a conference paper. Of the 14 studies reviewed, 10 had focused on RBC transfusion and four had focused on both RBCs and RBC transfusion. Ten studies were from the US, and two each from Canada and the UK, respectively. Two studies had explicit objective of cost calculation, and others had calculated costs towards fulfilling other objectives. Most of the reviewed studies were dated and of poor quality. Despite these limitations, it appears that the cost of RBCs has increased over time in the UK, Canada and the US. More studies are needed to fully assess the trend of costs over time. Future cost studies should try to follow the economic evaluation guidelines for greater research implications.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".