Factors influencing plasma transfusion practices in paediatric intensive care units around the world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Plasma transfusions are a frequent treatment worldwide, but many studies have reported a wide variation in the indications to transfuse. Recently, an international paediatric study also showed wide variation in frequency in the use of plasma transfusions: 25% of the centres transfused plasma to >5% of their patients, whereas another 25% transfused plasma to <1% of their patients. The objective of this study was to explore the factors associated with different plasma transfusion practices in these centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online survey sent to the local investigators of the 101 participating centres, in February 2016. Four areas were explored: beliefs regarding plasma transfusion, patients' case-mix in each unit, unit's characteristics, and local blood product transfusion policies and processes. RESULTS: The response rate was 82% (83/101). 43% of the respondents believed that plasma transfusions can arrest bleeding, whereas 27% believe that plasma transfusion can prevent bleeding. Centres with the highest plasma transfusion rate were more likely to think that hypovolaemia and mildly abnormal coagulation tests are appropriate indications for plasma transfusions (P = 0·02 and P = 0·04, respectively). Case-mix, centre characteristics or local transfusion services were not identified as significant relevant factors. CONCLUSION: Factors influencing plasma transfusion practices reflect beliefs about indications and the efficacy of transfusion in the prevention and management of bleeding as well as effects on coagulation tests. Educational and other initiatives to target these beliefs should be the focus of research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".