Survival of trauma patients after massive red blood cell transfusion using a high or low red blood cell to plasma transfusion ratio*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early and aggressive treatment of trauma-associated coagulopathy through transfusion of high plasma to packed red blood cell ratios is gaining favor. Whether this strategy is associated with improved survival is unclear. We performed a systematic review to determine whether higher plasma to packed red blood cell ratios compared with lower plasma to packed red blood cell ratios were associated with a survival advantage. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from 1950 to February 2010 for studies comparing mortality in massively transfused trauma cohorts receiving different plasma to packed red blood cell ratios. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently performed study selection. Discrepancies in study selection were resolved by discussion and consensus. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data from each study using a standardized form. Two authors independently assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven observational studies and no randomized controlled trials were identified. Three studies found a survival benefit with a 1:1 plasma to packed red blood cell transfusion ratio compared with either higher or lower ratios. Six studies did not examine a 1:1 ratio but concluded that higher plasma to packed red blood cell ratios improved survival. Secondary outcomes, including multiorgan system failure, packed red blood cell transfusion, respiratory outcomes, and coagulation variables, did not uniformly favor 1:1 or higher plasma to packed red blood cell ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological flaws, including survival bias, and heterogeneity between studies preclude statistical comparisons concerning the effects of a 1:1 plasma to packed red blood cell transfusion ratio. There is insufficient evidence to support a survival advantage with a 1:1 plasma to packed red blood cell transfusion strategy. Randomized controlled trials evaluating safety and efficacy are warranted before a high plasma to packed red blood cell transfusion ratio can be recommended.
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 | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".