首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medicine >Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing mortality in restrictive and liberal haemoglobin thresholds for red cell transfusion: an overview of systematic reviews
【24h】

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing mortality in restrictive and liberal haemoglobin thresholds for red cell transfusion: an overview of systematic reviews

机译:对红细胞输血的限制性和自由血红蛋白阈值进行比较的系统评价和荟萃分析:系统评价概述

获取原文
       

摘要

There are no overviews of systematic reviews investigating haemoglobin thresholds for transfusion. This is important as the literature on transfusion thresholds has grown considerably in recent years. Our aim was to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effects of restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies on mortality. This was a systematic review of systematic reviews (overview). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, from 2008 to 2018. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials comparing mortality in patients assigned to red cell transfusion strategies based on haemoglobin thresholds. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2 and the quality of evidence pooled using an algorithm to assign GRADE levels. We included 19 systematic reviews reporting 33 meta-analyses of mortality outcomes from 53 unique randomised controlled trials. Of the 33 meta-analyses, one was graded as high quality, 15 were moderate, and 17 were low. Of the meta-analyses presenting high- to moderate-quality evidence, 12 (75.0%) reported no statistically significant difference in mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups and four (25.0%) reported significantly lower mortality for patients assigned to a restrictive transfusion strategy. We found few systematic reviews addressed clinical differences between included studies: variation was observed in haemoglobin threshold concentrations, the absolute between group difference in haemoglobin threshold concentration, time to randomisation (resulting in transfusions administered prior to randomisation), and transfusion dosing regimens. Meta-analyses graded as high to moderate quality indicate that in most patient populations no difference in mortality exists between patients assigned to a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy.
机译:没有概述的系统评论调查血红蛋白阈值进行输血。这是近年来输血阈值的文献很重要。我们的宗旨是综合系统性评价和荟萃分析的证据,对限制性和自由输血策略对死亡率的影响。这是对系统评论的系统审查(概述)。我们搜索了Medline,Embase,Medicine Collection,PubMed,Google Scholar和Joanna Briggs Institute EBP数据库,从2008年到2018年。我们包括随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析,比较分配给红细胞的患者死亡率基于血红蛋白阈值的输血策略。两个独立审稿人提取数据并评估了方法质量。我们评估了使用AMSTAR 2和使用算法汇总的证据质量来评估包含审查的方法论质量。我们包括19个系统审查,报告33个荟萃分析了53个独特的随机对照试验的死亡率结果。在33个荟萃分析中,一个渐变为高质量,15个温和,17个低。介绍高至中等质量证据的META分析,12名(75.0%)报告限制性和自由输血群之间的死亡率差异无统计学显着差异,四个(25.0%)报告的患者分配给限制性输血策略的死亡率显着降低。我们发现少数系统评论解决了包括的研究之间的临床差异:在血红蛋白阈值浓度下观察到变化,血红蛋白阈值浓度的基团差异,随机化时间(导致随机化之前施用),输血剂量方案。高于中等质量的荟萃分析表明,在大多数患者群体中,分配给限制性或自由输送策略的患者之间存在死亡率的差异。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号