MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769846159 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002873

Should Transfusion Trigger Thresholds Differ for Critical Care Versus Perioperative Patients? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2017· review· en· W2769846159 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Chong, R. Gokul Krishnan, Davy Cheng, Janet Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubgroup analysisRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioPerioperativeMeta-analysisBlood transfusionInternal medicineCochrane LibraryIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To address the significant uncertainty as to whether transfusion thresholds for critical care versus surgical patients should differ. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library searches were performed up to 15 June 2016. PATIENTS: Trials had to enroll adult surgical or critically ill patients for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: Studies had to compare a liberal versus restrictive threshold for the transfusion of allogeneic packed RBCs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, sub-grouped by surgical and critical care patients. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, allogeneic blood exposure, and length of stay. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. To assess whether subgroups were significantly different, tests for subgroup interaction were used. Subgroup analysis by trials enrolling critically ill versus surgical patients was performed. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (10,797 patients) were included. In critical care patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in significantly reduced 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97). In surgical patients, a restrictive transfusion strategy led to the opposite direction of effect for mortality (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94-1.82). The subgroup interaction test was significant (p = 0.04), suggesting that the effect of restrictive transfusion on mortality is statistically different for critical care (decreased risk) versus surgical patients (potentially increased risk or no difference). Regarding secondary outcomes, for critically ill patients, a restrictive strategy resulted in reduced risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack, packed RBC exposure, transfusion reactions, and hospital length of stay. In surgical patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in reduced packed RBC exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of restrictive transfusion strategies likely differs for critically ill patients versus perioperative patients. Further trials investigating transfusion strategies in the perioperative setting are necessary.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.061
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.484
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.044 · 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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207