MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320857605 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31820eb517

Survival of trauma patients after massive red blood cell transfusion using a high or low red blood cell to plasma transfusion ratio*

2011· review· en· W2320857605 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Anita Rajasekhar, Rob Gowing, Ryan Zarychanski, Donald M. Arnold, Wendy Lim, Mark Crowther, Richard Lottenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Institute of Surgical ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePacked red blood cellsRed blood cellBlood transfusionRed CellCoagulopathyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.275 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations81
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207