| Title |
Transfusion requirements in septic shock (TRISS) trial - comparing the effects and safety of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion in septic shock patients in the ICU: protocol for a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-14-150 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars B Holst, Nicolai Haase, Jørn Wetterslev, Jan Wernerman, Anders Åneman, Anne B Guttormsen, Pär I Johansson, Sari Karlsson, Gudmundur Klemenzson, Robert Winding, Lars Nebrich, Carsten Albeck, Marianne L Vang, Hans-Henrik Bülow, Jeanie M Elkjær, Jane S Nielsen, Peter Kirkegaard, Helle Nibro, Anne Lindhardt, Ditte Strange, Katrin Thormar, Lone M Poulsen, Pawel Berezowicz, Per M Bådstøløkken, Kristian Strand, Maria Cronhjort, Elsebeth Haunstrup, Omar Rian, Anders Oldner, Asger Bendtsen, Susanne Iversen, Jørn-Åge Langva, Rasmus B Johansen, Niklas Nielsen, Ville Pettilä, Matti Reinikainen, Dorte Keld, Siv Leivdal, Jan-Michael Breider, Inga Tjäder, Nanna Reiter, Ulf Gøttrup, Jonathan White, Jørgen Wiis, Lasse Høgh Andersen, Morten Steensen, Anders Perner |
| Abstract |
Transfusion of red blood cells (RBC) is recommended in septic shock and the majority of these patients receive RBC transfusion in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, benefit and harm of RBCs have not been established in this group of high-risk patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Denmark | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 141 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 14% |
| Researcher | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 34 | 23% |
| Unknown | 31 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 63% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 1% |
| Psychology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Unknown | 34 | 23% |