| Title |
Impact of transfusion on patients with sepsis admitted in intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-016-0226-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Dupuis, Romain Sonneville, Christophe Adrie, Antoine Gros, Michael Darmon, Lila Bouadma, Jean-François Timsit |
| Abstract |
Red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) threshold in patients with sepsis remains a matter of controversy. A threshold of 7 g/dL for stabilized patients with sepsis is commonly proposed, although debated. The aim of the study was to compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal RBCT strategies in order to guide physicians on RBCT strategies in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Four outcomes were assessed: death, nosocomial infection (NI), acute lung injury (ALI) and acute kidney injury (AKI). Studies assessing RBCT strategies or RBCT impact on outcome and including intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis were assessed. Two systematic reviews were achieved: first for the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and second for the observational studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinical Trials.gov were analyzed up to March 01, 2015. Der Simonian and Laird random-effects models were used to report pooled odds ratios (ORs). Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed to explore studies heterogeneity. One RCT was finally included. The restrictive RBCT strategy was not associated with harm or benefit compared to liberal strategy. Twelve cohort studies were included, of which nine focused on mortality rate. RBCT was not associated with increased mortality rate (overall pooled OR was 1.10 [0.75, 1.60]; I (2) = 57%, p = 0.03), but was associated with the occurrence of NI (2 studies: pooled OR 1.25 [1.04-1.50]; I (2) = 0%, p = 0.97), the occurrence of ALI (1 study: OR 2.75 [1.22-6.37]; p = 0.016) and the occurrence of AKI (1 study: OR 5.22 [2.1-15.8]; p = 0.001). Because there was only one RCT, the final meta-analyses were only based on the cohort studies. As a result, the safety of a RBCT restrictive strategy was confirmed, although only one study specifically focused on ICU patients with sepsis. Then, RBCT was not associated with increased mortality rate, but was associated with increased in occurrence of NI, ALI and AKI. Nevertheless, the data on RBCT in patients with sepsis are sparse and the high heterogeneity between studies prevents from drawing any definitive conclusions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 25% |
| France | 3 | 25% |
| Spain | 2 | 17% |
| Colombia | 1 | 8% |
| Chile | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 23% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,365,778
of 24,353,295 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#500
of 1,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,199
of 429,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,353,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.