↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between red cell storage duration and outcomes in adults receiving red cell transfusions: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Relationship between red cell storage duration and outcomes in adults receiving red cell transfusions: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12600
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Lelubre, Jean-Louis Vincent

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The duration of red blood cell (RBC) storage before transfusion may alter RBC function and supernatant and, therefore, influence the incidence of complications or even mortality. METHODS: A MEDLINE search from 1983 to December 2012 was performed to identify studies reporting age of transfused RBCs and mortality or morbidity in adult patients. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were identified; most were single-center (93%) and retrospective (64%), with only a few, small randomized studies (eight studies, 14.5%). The numbers of subjects included ranged from eight to 364,037. Morbidity outcomes included hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), infections, multiple organ failure, microcirculatory alterations, cancer recurrence, thrombosis, bleeding, vasospasm after subarachnoid hemorrhage, and cognitive dysfunction. Overall, half of the studies showed no deleterious effects of aged compared to fresh blood on any endpoint. Eleven of twenty-two (50%) studies reported no increased mortality, three of nine (33%) showed no increased LOS with older RBCs and eight of twelve (66%) studies showed no increased risks of organ failure. Ten of eighteen (55%) studies showed increased infections with transfusion of older RBCs. The considerable heterogeneity among studies and numerous methodological flaws precluded a formal meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we could find no definitive argument to support the superiority of fresh over older RBCs for transfusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 92 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 30 32%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 20 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,062,643
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,849
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,824
of 212,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#15
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 212,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.