Transfusion of RBCs of shorter vs standard practice storage duration: Mortality: in‐hospital mortality (time points varied)
Transfusion of RBCs of shorter showed no clear difference in mortality: in‐hospital mortality (time points varied) compared with standard practice storage duration (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Transfusion of RBCs of shorter vs standard practice storage duration Mortality: in‐hospital mortality (time points varied) · all conditions Transfusion of RBCs of shorter showed no clear difference in mortality: in‐hospital mortality (time points varied) compared with standard practice storage duration (moderate certainty). Transfusion of red blood cells stored for shorter versus longer duration for all conditions (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.05 [0.97, 1.14] | 4 studies · 25754 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfusion of red blood cells stored for shorter versus longer duration for all conditions 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.