MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520253855 · doi:10.1111/trf.13785

Adverse effects of red blood cell transfusions in neonates: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2016· review· en· W2520253855 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Keir, Sanchita Pal, Marialena Trivella, Lani Lieberman, Jeannie Callum, Nadine Shehata, Simon Stanworth

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)University of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineNecrotizing enterocolitisRetinopathy of prematurityRandomized controlled trialIntraventricular hemorrhageMeta-analysisRelative riskConfidence intervalAdverse effectPediatricsCochrane LibraryInternal medicineBronchopulmonary dysplasiaIntensive care medicinePregnancyGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the contribution of blood transfusions to a range of adverse clinical outcomes in neonates. The aim of our systematic review was to identify the broader literature on harmful effects and associations potentially attributable to red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE was undertaken. Eligible studies included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies examining the effects of small volume (10-20 mL/kg) RBC transfusions on neonates. Primary outcomes of interest were mortality, chronic lung disease, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, and intraventricular hemorrhage. Two independent authors conducted a review of abstracts and then of full-text article reviews as well as data extraction and quality assessments. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies were eligible for inclusion, including 16 (26%) randomized studies. The majority of studies were nonrandomized (n = 45; 74%), which included 32 observational studies with and 13 studies without a comparator group. There was no evidence that rates of mortality differed between restrictive and liberal strategies for transfusion (eight RCTs: risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.672, heterogeneity = 0%) or for necrotizing enterocolitis (five RCTs: risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.33; heterogeneity = 0%). A liberal strategy also was not superior to restrictive transfusion practice in the pooled randomized studies for rates of retinopathy of prematurity, chronic lung disease, or intraventricular hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences in a range of harmful outcomes between neonates exposed to restrictive and liberal RBC transfusion practice were not found. However, the risks of bias identified in many studies and the lack of consistent reporting and definitions of events limits our conclusions.

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)0.042
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.031
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207