MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417454098 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-107697

Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion thresholds in acute acquired brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4417454098 on OpenAlexaff
Sachin Sud, Federico Angriman, Jan O. Friedrich, Damon C. Scales, Alexis F. Turgeon, Shane English, Neill K. J. Adhikari

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversité LavalTrillium Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRed Blood Cell TransfusionBlood transfusionRed blood cellEpidemiologyMEDLINENeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To evaluate the effects of liberal transfusion strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤90–100 g/L) compared with a restrictive strategy (trigger haemoglobin ≤70–80 g/L) on long-term neurological functional outcome in anaemic adult patients with acute acquired brain injury (ABI). Design Systematic review and study-level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane from inception to 6 February 2025. Study selection RCTs enrolling patients with acute ABI and anaemia (haemoglobin ≤100 g/L), comparing a liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategy. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of RCTs and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was an unfavourable neurological functional outcome, using the Glasgow Outcome or modified Rankin scales. Results Five trials enrolling 2364 patients with acute ABI and anaemia were included in the primary analysis. Liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable neurological outcome (risk ratio (RR)=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95, high certainty). Liberal transfusion may reduce severe disability (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02, moderate certainty), and increase good recovery compared with restrictive transfusion (RR=1.29, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76, low certainty). We found no difference in the risk of most adverse events, including death. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I 2 =0%–36%) for neurological outcomes. Conclusions In adults with acute ABI and anaemia, liberal transfusion reduces the risk of unfavourable outcome (high certainty) and possibly improves the chances of good recovery (low certainty) when compared with restrictive transfusion. PROSPERO registration number CRD42025628732.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.037
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicBlood transfusion and management→French-language works237,207→