Red blood cell transfusion in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anemia is a prevalent condition in critically ill patients and red blood cell transfusions are frequent. Although transfusions at low hemoglobin levels have been shown to be associated with equivalent or better outcomes than higher hemoglobin thresholds, clinical equipoise persists in patients with traumatic brain injury considering their susceptibility to secondary cerebral insults such as those from hypoxemia. METHODS: Our objectives are to estimate the frequency of red blood cell transfusion in patients with traumatic brain injury and to evaluate transfusion thresholds, determinants and outcomes associated with transfusion strategies.We will conduct a systematic review of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials of patients with traumatic brain injury. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies. Two independent reviewers will screen all identified references. Studies including adult patients with traumatic brain injury reporting data on red blood cell transfusions will be eligible. We will collect data on baseline demographics, trauma characteristics, hemoglobin thresholds, blood transfusions and clinical outcomes (mortality, length of stay, complications, and so on). Two independent reviewers will extract data using a standardized form. We will pool cumulative incidences using DerSimonian and Lair random-effect models after a Freeman-Tukey transformation to stabilize variances. We will pool risk ratios or mean differences with random-effect models and Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance methods in order to evaluate the association between red blood cell transfusion and potential determinants or outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis according to timing of red blood cell transfusion, traumatic brain injury severity, year of conduction of the study, risk of bias, notably, are planned. DISCUSSION: We expect to observe high heterogeneity in the proportion of transfused patients across studies and that the global proportion will be similar to the frequency observed in the general medical critically ill population. Our systematic review will allow us to better describe and understand current transfusion practices in patients with traumatic brain injury, a clinical population in which liberal transfusions are still advocated in the absence of evidence-based data. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO: CRD42014007402.
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 | 0.029 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.004 |
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".