↓ Skip to main content

Worldwide audit of blood transfusion practice in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Worldwide audit of blood transfusion practice in critically ill patients
Published in
Critical Care, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2018-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Louis Vincent, Ulrich Jaschinski, Xavier Wittebole, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Stephan M. Jakob, Ghaleb A. Almekhlafi, Tommaso Pellis, Swagata Tripathy, Paolo N. Rubatto Birri, Yasser Sakr, on behalf of the ICON Investigators

Abstract

The aim was to describe transfusion practice in critically ill patients at an international level and evaluate the effects of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion on outcomes in these patients. This was a pre-planned sub-study of the Intensive Care Over Nations audit, which involved 730 ICUs in 84 countries and included all adult patients admitted between 8 May and 18 May 2012, except admissions for routine postoperative surveillance. ICU and hospital outcomes were recorded. Among the 10,069 patients included in the audit, data related to transfusion had been completed for 9553 (mean age 60 ± 18 years, 60% male); 2511 (26.3%) of these had received a transfusion, with considerable variation among geographic regions. The mean lowest hemoglobin on the day of transfusion was 8.3 ± 1.7 g/dL, but varied from 7.8 ± 1.4 g/dL in the Middle East to 8.9 ± 1.9 g/dL in Eastern Europe. Hospital mortality rates were higher in transfused than in non-transfused patients (30.0% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001) and increased with increasing numbers of transfused units. In an extended Cox proportional hazard analysis, the relative risk of in-hospital death was slightly lower after transfusion in the whole cohort (hazard ratio 0.98, confidence interval 0.96-1.00, p = 0.048). There was a stepwise decrease in the hazard ratio for mortality after transfusion with increasing admission severity scores. More than one fourth of critically ill patients are transfused during their ICU stay, with considerable variations in transfusion practice among geographic regions. After adjustment for confounders, RBC transfusions were associated with a slightly lower relative risk of in-hospital death, especially in the most severely ill patients, highlighting the importance of taking the severity of illness into account when making transfusion decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 35 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 17 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,565,246
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,371
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,052
of 341,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#46
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 341,843 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.