↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 Mendeley
Title
Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001888.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carless, Paul A, Henry, David A, Moxey, Annette J, O'Connell, Dianne, Brown, Tamara, Fergusson, Dean A, Paul A Carless, David A Henry, Annette J Moxey, Dianne O’Connell, Tamara Brown, Dean A Fergusson

Abstract

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements. To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes. We identified studies by searching CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009), the internet (to August 2009) and bibliographies of published articles. Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage (autotransfusion) or to a control group who did not receive the intervention. Data were independently extracted and the risk of bias assessed. Relative risks (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review. A total of 75 trials were included. Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 38% (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 21% (95% CI 15% to 26%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.57) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.68 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (WMD -0.68; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes. The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. The use of cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status potentially biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Australia 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 254 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 35 13%
Researcher 34 13%
Other 33 12%
Student > Postgraduate 30 11%
Other 70 26%
Unknown 28 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 157 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 6%
Psychology 10 4%
Engineering 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 33 12%
Unknown 35 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,498,252
of 16,849,755 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,988
of 11,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,199
of 217,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,849,755 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 217,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.