Question · asked by 1 review
Long‐term red cell transfusion vs hydroxyurea and phlebotomy: Measures of neurological impairment ‐ not reported
- Population
- individuals with sickle cell disease who have had a stroke who have had long‐term red cell transfusions to prevent another stroke
- Intervention
- Long‐term red cell transfusion
- Comparison
- hydroxyurea and phlebotomy
- Outcome
- Measures of neurological impairment ‐ not reported
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Long‐term red cell transfusion vs hydroxyurea and phlebotomy Measures of neurological impairment ‐ not reported · individuals with sickle cell disease who have had a stroke who have had long‐term red cell transfusions to prevent… The review found no eligible studies for this question. Blood transfusion for preventing primary and secondary stroke in people with sickle cell disease (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blood transfusion for preventing primary and secondary stroke in people with sickle cell disease 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Long‐term red cell transfusion vs hydroxyurea and phlebotomy · individuals with sickle cell disease who are at risk of a primary stroke who have had… · 1 review
- Long‐term red cell transfusion vs no transfusion · individuals with sickle cell disease who are at risk of a primary stroke who have had… · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.