MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025765530 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181e329f1

Effect of the Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists upon Clinical Practices

2010· article· en· W2025765530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donald S. Likosky, Daniel C. FitzGerald, Robert C. Groom, Dwayne K. Jones, Robert A. Baker, Kenneth G. Shann, C. David Mazer, Bruce D. Spiess, Simon C. Body

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelinePerioperativeAmerican society of anesthesiologistsCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyClinical PracticeCardiac surgeryCardiothoracic surgeryAnesthesiologyBlood transfusionIntensive care medicineBlood managementEmergency medicineSurgeryFamily medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 2007 Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Guideline for Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery was recently promulgated and has received much attention. Using a survey of cardiac anesthesiologists and perfusionists' clinical practice, we aimed to assess the current practices of perfusion, anesthesia, and surgery, as recommended by the Guidelines, and to also determine the role the Guidelines had in changing these practices. METHODS: Nontrainee members of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the American Academy of Cardiovascular Perfusion, the Canadian Society of Clinical Perfusion, and the American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology were surveyed using a standardized survey instrument that examined clinical practices and responses to the Guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1402 surveys from 1061 institutions principally in the United States (677 institutions) and Canada (34 institutions) were returned, a 32% response rate. There was wide distribution of the Guidelines with 78% of anesthesiologists and 67% of perfusionists reporting having read all, part, or a summary of the Guidelines. However, only 20% of respondents reported that an institutional discussion had taken place as a result of the Guidelines, and only 14% of respondents reported that an institutional monitoring group had been formed. There was wide variability in current preoperative testing, perfusion, surgical, and pharmacological practices reported by respondents. Twenty-six percent of respondents reported 1 or more practice changes in response to the Guidelines. The changes made were reported to be highly (9%) or somewhat (31%) effective in reducing overall transfusion rates. Only 4 of 38 Guideline recommendations were reported by >5% of respondents to have been changed in response to the Guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in clinical practices of cardiac surgery was reported. Little change in clinical practices was attributed to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Guidelines.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.332 · 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.

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

Citations79
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207