Systematic review of electronic remote blood issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The implementation of electronic remote blood issue (ERBI) may provide safety and efficiency gains for transfusion medicine. This systematic review's objective was to assess whether ERBI affects incidents of adverse events, time taken for blood issue and delivery, and cross-match to transfusion ratios, among other measures of safety and efficiency. The review also sought to uncover barriers and facilitators of ERBI implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched four aggregated electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and BIOSIS) up to 19 July 2012, with an updated search performed on 5 March 2014 for studies on ERBI. No specific study design criteria were used in the initial inclusion due to the low number of studies on ERBI. RESULTS: A total of 4758 citations were initially identified; after 1844 duplicates were removed, 2612 citations were excluded on the basis of the abstract. Two reviewers evaluated a total of 302 full-text articles independently; of these, seven citations were eligible for inclusion. An updated search and the authors' own collections confirmed an additional five citations, totalling 13 citations and six studies within these. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether ERBI significantly impacts safety and efficiency of blood transfusion and delivery processes. Rigorously designed studies to assess safety and efficiency outcomes are required using proxy or corollary measures. A number of positive results were reported, however, and most studies included suggestions for facilitating ERBI implementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".