American Burn Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Blood Product Transfusion in Burn Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Clinical Practice Guideline addresses blood product transfusion among hospitalized acutely burned adults. The Investigator Panel, consisting of the authors of this paper, developed clinically relevant questions in PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). These questions informed a systematic literature search which returned 1947 titles, of which 10 articles met the criteria for inclusion and critical review. We strongly recommend the use of a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion threshold (hemoglobin level ≥ 7 g/dL), to reduce the number of blood transfusions administered to adults with burns ≥ 20% total burn surface area (TBSA). We also recommend a restrictive RBC transfusion threshold because the outcomes of infection, length of stay, and mortality are no worse than with liberal RBC transfusion thresholds (hemoglobin level ≥ 10 g/dL), while transfusing less blood. We make a weak recommendation to not use recombinant human erythropoietin to reduce the number of RBC transfusions. We make a weak conditional recommendation to consider the use of intraoperative intravenous tranexamic acid during major burn wound excision, to reduce the number of perioperative blood transfusions, preferably in conjunction with performing dynamic viscoelastic testing in this setting. We recommend that in the perioperative period during major burn debridement, thromboelastography and rotation thromboelastometry be used to guide blood product transfusion, to reduce the overall amount of blood product transfusion. No recommendation could be made on the use of a 1:1:1 RBC to fresh frozen plasma to platelet transfusion strategy to decrease the number of RBC transfusions or mortality in adult burn patients undergoing surgical burn wound excision.
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 | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".