↓ Skip to main content

Red blood cell transfusion for people undergoing hip fracture surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Red blood cell transfusion for people undergoing hip fracture surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009699.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan J Brunskill, Sarah L Millette, Ali Shokoohi, EC Pulford, Carolyn Doree, Michael F Murphy, Simon Stanworth

Abstract

The incidence of hip fracture is increasing and it is more common with increasing age. Surgery is used for almost all hip fractures. Blood loss occurs as a consequence of both the fracture and the surgery and thus red blood cell transfusion is frequently used. However, red blood cell transfusion is not without risks. Therefore, it is important to identify the evidence for the effective and safe use of red blood cell transfusion in people with hip fracture. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of red blood cell transfusion in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (31 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to 20 November 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to 20 November 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 20 November 2014), British Nursing Index Database (January 1992 to 20 November 2014), the Systematic Review Initiative's Transfusion Evidence Library, PubMed for e-publications, various other databases and ongoing trial registers. Randomised controlled trials comparing red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion or an alternative to transfusion, different transfusion protocols or different transfusion thresholds in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. Three review authors independently assessed each study's risk of bias and extracted data using a study-specific form. We pooled data where there was homogeneity in the trial comparisons and the timing of outcome measurement. We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality (low, moderate or high) of the evidence for each outcome. We included six trials (2722 participants): all compared two thresholds for red blood cell transfusion: a 'liberal' strategy to maintain a haemoglobin concentration of usually 10 g/dL versus a more 'restrictive' strategy based on symptoms of anaemia or a lower haemoglobin concentration, usually 8 g/dL. The exact nature of the transfusion interventions, types of surgery and participants varied between trials. The mean age of participants ranged from 81 to 87 years and approximately 24% of participants were men. The largest trial enrolled 2016 participants, over 60% of whom had a history of cardiovascular disease. The percentage of participants receiving a red blood cell transfusion ranged from 74% to 100% in the liberal transfusion threshold group and from 11% to 45% in the restrictive transfusion threshold group. There were no results available for the smallest trial (18 participants). All studies were at some risk of bias, in particular performance bias relating to the absence of blinding of personnel. We judged the evidence for all outcomes, except myocardial infarction, was low quality reflecting risk of bias primarily from imbalances in protocol violations in the largest trial and imprecision, often because of insufficient events. Thus, further research is likely to have an important impact on these results.There was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in mortality, at 30 days post hip fracture surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.26; five trials; 2683 participants; low quality evidence) or at 60 days post surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44; three trials; 2283 participants; low quality evidence). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of 50 deaths per 1000 participants in the restricted threshold group at 30 days, these data equate to four fewer (95% CI 17 fewer to 14 more) deaths per 1000 in the liberal threshold group at 30 days.There was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in functional recovery at 60 days, assessed in terms of the inability to walk 10 feet (3 m) without human assistance (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; two trials; 2083 participants; low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence of no difference between the transfusion thresholds in postoperative morbidity for the following complications: thromboembolism (RR 1.15 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.37; four trials; 2416 participants), stroke (RR 2.40 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.85 to 6.79; four trials; 2416 participants), wound infection (RR 1.61 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.35; three trials; 2332 participants), respiratory infection (pneumonia) (RR 1.35 favouring a restrictive threshold, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.92; four trials; 2416 participants) and new diagnosis of congestive heart failure (RR 0.77 favouring a liberal threshold, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.23; three trials; 2332 participants). There was very low quality evidence of a lower risk of myocardial infarction in the liberal compared with the restrictive transfusion threshold group (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.96; three trials; 2217 participants). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of myocardial infarction of 24 per 1000 participants in the restricted threshold group, this result was compatible with between one and 15 fewer myocardial infarctions in the liberal threshold group. We found low quality evidence of no difference in mortality, functional recovery or postoperative morbidity between 'liberal' versus 'restrictive' thresholds for red blood cell transfusion in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. Although further research may change the estimates of effect, the currently available evidence does not support the use of liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds based on a 10 g/dL haemoglobin trigger in preference to more restrictive transfusion thresholds based on lower haemoglobin levels or symptoms of anaemia in these people. Future research needs to address the effectiveness of red blood cell transfusions at different time points in the surgical pathway, whether pre-operative, peri-operative or postoperative. In particular, such research would need to consider people who are symptomatic or haemodynamically unstable who were excluded from most of these trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 179 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Unspecified 21 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Other 66 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 57%
Unspecified 33 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Psychology 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 15 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,041,183
of 13,040,640 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,247
of 10,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,830
of 227,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,040,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 227,341 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 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 59% of its contemporaries.