The epidemiology of multicomponent blood transfusion: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We performed a systematic review to describe the prevalence of multicomponent blood transfusion and, as a secondary objective, to determine patient characteristics and outcomes associated with multicomponent transfusion. There is a lack of literature on the epidemiology of multicomponent transfusion as most studies concentrate on a single blood product and its utilisation. Patient care and blood management can be optimised by better understanding the patients who receive multicomponent transfusions. The databases Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews were searched. Observational cohort and cross-sectional studies of hospital patients reporting on multicomponent transfusion prevalence or on patient characteristics and outcomes associated with multicomponent transfusion were included. A descriptive synthesis of studies was performed. A total of 37 eligible studies were included. It was found that multicomponent transfusion prevalence varied greatly by patient population and by the combination of blood products given in the multicomponent transfusion. Multicomponent-transfused patients included burn, cardiac surgery, liver surgery and transplant, cancer, infectious diseases, trauma and intensive care unit patients. Five studies found associations between multicomponent transfusion and adverse health outcomes; however, these findings are likely confounded by indication. The overall quality of evidence was low given a fair-to-poor individual study quality, inconsistent multicomponent transfusion prevalence estimates and confounding by indication. Further research is needed to better understand the epidemiology of multicomponent transfusion, including studies on multicomponent transfusion in haematological cancer patients and studies looking for patient characteristics that can better predict multicomponent transfusion need.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".