Recommendations on RBC Transfusion in Critically Ill Children With Nonlife-Threatening Bleeding or Hemorrhagic Shock From the Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To present the recommendations and supporting literature for RBC transfusions in critically ill children with bleeding developed by the Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative. DESIGN: Consensus conference series of international, multidisciplinary experts in RBC transfusion management of critically ill children. METHODS: The panel of 38 experts developed evidence-based and, when evidence was lacking, expert-based clinical recommendations as well as research priorities for RBC transfusions in critically ill children. The bleeding subgroup included five experts. Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from 1980 to May 2017. Agreement was obtained using the Research and Development/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. RESULTS: Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative Consensus Conference experts developed a total of six recommendations focused on transfusion in the critically ill child with acute bleeding. In critically ill children with nonlife-threatening bleeding, we recommend giving a RBC transfusion for a hemoglobin concentration less than 5 g/dL, and be considered for a hemoglobin concentration between 5 and 7 g/dL. In critically ill children with hemorrhagic shock, we suggest that RBCs, plasma and platelets transfusion ratio between 2:1:1 to 1:1:1 until the bleeding is no longer life-threatening. We recommend future studies to develop physiologic and laboratory measures to indicate the need for RBC transfusions, and to determine if goal directed hemostatic resuscitation improves survival. Finally, we recommend future studies to determine if low titer group O whole blood is more efficacious and safe compared with reconstituted whole blood in children with hemorrhagic shock. CONCLUSIONS: The Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative Consensus Conference developed pediatric specific recommendations regarding RBC transfusion management in the critically ill child with acute bleeding, as well as recommendations to help guide future research priorities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".