MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282591344 · doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2016.01.002

Effect of Blood Donor Characteristics on Transfusion Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016· review· en· W2282591344 on OpenAlexaff
Michaël Chassé, Lauralyn McIntyre, Shane English, Alan Tinmouth, Greg Knoll, Dianna Wolfe, Kumanan Wilson, Nadine Shehata, Alan J. Forster, Carl van Walraven, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion Medicine Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyConfoundingHazard ratioMeta-analysisBlood transfusionConfidence intervalMEDLINEBlood donorIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal selection of blood donors is critical for ensuring the safety of blood products. The current selection process is concerned principally with the safety of the blood donor at the time of donation and of the recipient at the time of transfusion. Recent evidence suggests that the characteristics of the donor may affect short- and long-term transfusion outcomes for the transfused recipient. We conducted a systematic review with the primary objective of assessing the association between blood donor characteristics and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases and performed manual searches of top transfusion journals for all available prospective and retrospective studies. We described study characteristics, methodological quality, and risk of bias and provided study-level effect estimates and, when appropriate, pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals using the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance approach. The overall quality of the evidence was graded using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. From 6121 citations identified by our literature search, 59 studies met our eligibility criteria (50 observational, 9 interventional). We identified the evaluation of association of 17 donor characteristics on RBC transfusion outcome. The risk of bias and confounding of the included studies was high. The quality of evidence was graded as very low to low for all 17 donor characteristics. Potential associations were observed for donor sex with reduced survival at 90 days and 6 months in male recipients that receive donated blood from females (hazard ratio 2.60 [1.09, 6.20] and hazard ratio 2.40 [1.10, 5.24], respectively; n = 1), Human Leukocyte Antigen - antigen D Related (HLA-DR) selected transfusions (odds ratio [OR] 0.39 [0.15, 0.99] for the risk of transplant alloimmunization, n = 9), presence of antileukocyte antibodies (OR 5.84 [1.66, 20.59] for risk of transfusion-related acute lung injury, n = 4), and donor RBC antigens selection (OR 0.20 [0.08, 0.52] for risk of alloimmunization, n = 4). Based on poor quality evidence, positive antileukocyte antibodies, female donor to male recipients, HLA-DR selected RBC transfusion, or donor RBC antigen selection may affect RBC transfusion outcome. Our findings that donor characteristics may be associated with transfusion outcomes warrant establishing vein-to-vein data infrastructure to allow for large robust evaluations. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013006726.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.039
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations85
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusion Medicine ReviewsSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207