↓ Skip to main content

Washed versus unwashed red blood cells for transfusion for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Washed versus unwashed red blood cells for transfusion for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011484.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy K Keir, Dominic Wilkinson, Chad Andersen, Michael J Stark, Keir, Amy K, Wilkinson, Dominic, Andersen, Chad, Stark, Michael J

Abstract

Infants born very preterm often receive multiple red blood cell (RBC) transfusions during their initial hospitalisation. However, there is an increasing awareness of potential adverse effects of RBC transfusions in this vulnerable patient population. Modification of RBCs prior to transfusion, through washing with 0.9% saline, may reduce these adverse effects and reduce the rate of significant morbidity and mortality for preterm infants and improve outcomes for this high-risk group. To determine whether pre-transfusion washing of RBCs prevents morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (31 July 2015), EMBASE (31 July 2015), and CINAHL (31 July 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised, cluster randomised, and quasi-randomised controlled trials including preterm infants (less than 32 weeks gestation) or very low birth weight infants (less than 1500 g), or both, who received one or more washed packed RBC transfusions. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials. We identified four studies from the initial search. After further review of the full-text studies, we found one study meeting the selection criteria. We included a single study enrolling a total of 21 infants for analysis in this review and reported on all-cause mortality during hospital stay, length of initial neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay (days), and duration of mechanical ventilation (days). There was no significant difference in mortality between the washed versus the unwashed RBCs for transfusion groups (risk ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 9.36; risk difference 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.45). There was no significant difference in the length of initial NICU stay between the washed versus the unwashed RBCs for transfusion groups (mean difference (MD) 25 days, 95% CI -21.15 to 71.15) or the duration of mechanical ventilation between the washed versus the unwashed RBCs for transfusion groups (MD 9.60 days, 95% CI -1.90 to 21.10). We identified a single small study. The results from this study show a high level of uncertainty, as the confidence intervals are consistent with both a large improvement or a serious harm caused by the intervention. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of washed RBCs to prevent the development of significant neonatal morbidities or mortality. Further clinical trials are required to assess the potential effects of pre-transfusion washing of RBCs for preterm or very low birth weight infants, or both, on short- and long-term outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 50%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 25%
Unspecified 7 22%
Student > Postgraduate 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Other 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 78%
Unspecified 14 44%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#707,424
of 8,088,508 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,938
of 8,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,414
of 329,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,088,508 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 8,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 329,632 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 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 56% of its contemporaries.