MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531750597 · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9185

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the AABB

2016· article· en· W2531750597 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey L. Carson, Gordon Guyatt, Nancy M. Heddle, Brenda J. Grossman, Claudia S. Cohn, Mark Fung, Terry Gernsheimer, John B. Holcomb, Lewis J. Kaplan, Louis M. Katz, Nikki Peterson, Glenn Ramsey, Sunil V. Rao, John D. Roback, Aryeh Shander, Aaron A.R. Tobian

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemoglobinBlood transfusionContext (archaeology)Adverse effectRandomized controlled trialClinical trialIntensive care medicineClinical PracticeTransfusion medicineRed Blood Cell TransfusionEmergency medicineInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: More than 100 million units of blood are collected worldwide each year, yet the indication for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and the optimal length of RBC storage prior to transfusion are uncertain. Objective: To provide recommendations for the target hemoglobin level for RBC transfusion among hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable and the length of time RBCs should be stored prior to transfusion. Evidence Review: Reference librarians conducted a literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating hemoglobin thresholds for RBC transfusion (1950-May 2016) and RBC storage duration (1948-May 2016) without language restrictions. The results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. For RBC transfusion thresholds, 31 RCTs included 12 587 participants and compared restrictive thresholds (transfusion not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 7-8 g/dL) with liberal thresholds (transfusion not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 9-10 g/dL). The summary estimates across trials demonstrated that restrictive RBC transfusion thresholds were not associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, including 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, rebleeding, pneumonia, or thromboembolism. For RBC storage duration, 13 RCTs included 5515 participants randomly allocated to receive fresher blood or standard-issue blood. These RCTs demonstrated that fresher blood did not improve clinical outcomes. Findings: It is good practice to consider the hemoglobin level, the overall clinical context, patient preferences, and alternative therapies when making transfusion decisions regarding an individual patient. Recommendation 1: a restrictive RBC transfusion threshold in which the transfusion is not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 7 g/dL is recommended for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, including critically ill patients, rather than when the hemoglobin level is 10 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). A restrictive RBC transfusion threshold of 8 g/dL is recommended for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, cardiac surgery, and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). The restrictive transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is likely comparable with 8 g/dL, but RCT evidence is not available for all patient categories. These recommendations do not apply to patients with acute coronary syndrome, severe thrombocytopenia (patients treated for hematological or oncological reasons who are at risk of bleeding), and chronic transfusion-dependent anemia (not recommended due to insufficient evidence). Recommendation 2: patients, including neonates, should receive RBC units selected at any point within their licensed dating period (standard issue) rather than limiting patients to transfusion of only fresh (storage length: <10 days) RBC units (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: Research in RBC transfusion medicine has significantly advanced the science in recent years and provides high-quality evidence to inform guidelines. A restrictive transfusion threshold is safe in most clinical settings and the current blood banking practices of using standard-issue blood should be continued.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0140.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.061

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1,109
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207