MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

2006· review· en· W4252276314 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A Carless, David Henry, Annette Moxey, Dianne O'Connell, Tamara Brown, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeRelative riskBlood transfusionMeta-analysisConfidence intervalClinical trialMEDLINEIntensive care medicineSurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood, have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements. OBJECTIVES: To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the websites of international health technology assessment agencies. The reference lists in identified trials and review articles were also searched, and study authors were contacted to identify additional studies. The searches were updated in January 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled parallel group trials in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage, or to a control group, who did not receive the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. The main outcomes measures were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion, and the amount of blood transfused. Other outcomes measured were re-operation for bleeding, blood loss, post-operative complications (thrombosis, infection, non-fatal myocardial infarction, renal failure), mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). MAIN RESULTS: Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 39% (relative risk [RR] = 0.61: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.71). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 23% (95% CI 16% to 30%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.42 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.54) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.87) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.67 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (weighted mean difference was -0.64; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.45). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective surgery. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations149
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207