Transfusion Practices in 12 Neonatal Networks: Are We Closer to Adopting a Restrictive Transfusion Approach?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent evidence suggests a restrictive approach toward blood transfusions for management of preterm infants. Objective was to survey blood transfusion practises in preterm neonates <29 weeks' gestation among 12 population-based neonatal networks participating in the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes in Neonates (iNeo). METHODS: An online survey based on 2023 practices was sent to 608 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs): Australia/New Zealand (30), Brazil (20), Canada (32), Finland (5), France (70), Israel (26), Japan (292), Poland (56), Spain (55), Sweden (9), Switzerland (9), and Tuscany, Italy (4). Transfusion thresholds in 4 different scenarios were surveyed: (a) infants invasively ventilated within first 7 postnatal days, (b) infants invasively ventilated after 7 days, (c) stable infants on noninvasive respiratory support, and (d) stable infants requiring no respiratory support. RESULTS: A total of 382 NICUs (63%) responded. Transfusion practices varied within networks and between countries. For invasively ventilated infants, the transfusion threshold during first 7 days after birth was a hematocrit ≤35% in 79% of NICUs, and at an age ≥8 days, the transfusion threshold was a hematocrit ≤30% in 68% of NICUs. For stable infants on noninvasive ventilation, the transfusion threshold was a hematocrit ≤30% in 80%, and in those without respiratory support, the transfusion threshold was a hematocrit of ≤25% in 68% of NICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Variations exist in blood transfusion practises between countries and within networks. A restrictive transfusion approach based on recent recommendations has been adopted by more than two-thirds of NICUs. Additional research is needed to evaluate whether practices align with intentions and how they impact outcomes. .
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".