MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical Practice Guideline for Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds in Very Preterm Neonates

2024· article· en· W4399669437 on OpenAlexaff
Emöke Deschmann, Christof Dame, Martha Sola‐Visner, Susanna F. Fustolo‐Gunnink, Gordon Guyatt, Ravi M. Patel, Simon Stanworth, Helen V. New, Enrico Lopriore, Charles Christoph Roehr, Estela Coutinho, Corina Croitoru, Livia Nagy-Bonnard, Valerie Matthäus, Eirik Nestaas, Giuseppe Buonocore, Danièle De Luca, Manuel Sánchez Luna, Matteo Di Nardo, Nabiha H. Saifee, Cassandra D. Josephson, Elise J. Huijssen-Huisman, Lani Lieberman, Evan Orenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineRandomized controlled trialHematocritGrading (engineering)PediatricsAnemiaClinical trialIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a common medical intervention to treat anemia in very preterm neonates; however, best transfusion practices, such as thresholds, remain uncertain. Objective: To develop recommendations for clinicians on the use of RBC transfusions in very preterm neonates. Evidence Review: An international steering committee reviewed evidence from a systematic review of 6 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared high vs low hemoglobin-based or hematocrit-based transfusion thresholds. The steering committee reached consensus on certainty-of-evidence ratings and worked with a panel from stakeholder organizations on reviewing the evidence. With input from parent representatives and the stakeholder panel, the steering committee used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. Findings: A systematic review of 6 RCTs encompassing 3483 participants (1759 females [51.3%]; mean [SD] age range, 25.9-29.8 [1.5-3.0] weeks) was used as the basis of the recommendations. The ranges for higher hemoglobin concentration (liberal) vs lower hemoglobin concentration (restrictive) threshold study arms were similar across the trials. However, specific thresholds differed based on the severity of illness, which was defined using variable criteria in the trials. There was moderate certainty of evidence that low transfusion thresholds likely had little to no difference in important short-term and long-term outcomes. The recommended hemoglobin thresholds varied on the basis of postnatal week and respiratory support needs. At postnatal weeks 1, 2, and 3 or more, for neonates on respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 11, 10, and 9 g/dL, respectively; for neonates on no or minimal respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 10, 8.5, and 7 g/dL, respectively (to convert hemoglobin to grams per liter, multiply by 10.0). Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement recommends a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy, with moderate certainty of evidence, for preterm neonates with less than 30 weeks' gestation.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.013
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0120.005
Research integrity0.0190.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.013

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207