Question · asked by 1 review
Long‐term red cell transfusion vs usual care: All‐cause mortality
- Population
- prevention of SCI in people with SCD and abnormal TCD velocities
- Intervention
- Long‐term red cell transfusion
- Comparison
- usual care
- Outcome
- All‐cause mortality
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Long‐term RBC transfusion vs standard care All‐cause mortality · prevention of SCI in people with SCD and abnormal TCD velocities Interventions for preventing silent cerebral infarcts in people with sickle cell disease (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 130 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for preventing silent cerebral infarcts 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 no transfusion · individuals with sickle cell disease who are at risk of a primary stroke who have not… · 1 review
- Long‐term red cell transfusion vs hydroxyurea and phlebotomy · individuals with sickle cell disease who have had a stroke who have had long‐term red… · 1 review
- Long‐term red cell transfusion vs usual care · prevention of SCI in people with SCD and normal TCD velocities · 1 review
- 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.