Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 343

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surgical Outcomes and Transfusion of Minimal Amounts of Blood in the Operating Room

Open access
Ferraris, Victor A.·2012·Archives of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine outcomes in patients who receive small amounts of intraoperative blood transfusion. DESIGN: Longitudinal, uncontrolled observational study evaluating results of intraoperative transfusion in patients entered into the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. We made propensity-matched comparisons between patients who received and did not receive intraoperative transfusion to minimize confounding when estimating the effect of intraoperative transfusion on postoperative outcomes. SETTING: We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for patients undergoing operations between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009. PATIENTS: A large sample of surgical patients from 173 hospitals throughout the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative mortality and serious perioperative morbidity (≥1 of 20 complications). RESULTS: After exclusions, 941,496 operations were analyzed in patients from 173 hospitals. Most patients (893,205 patients [94.9%]) did not receive intraoperative transfusions. Patients who received intraoperative infusion of 1 unit of packed red blood cells (15,186 patients [1.6%]) had higher unadjusted rates of mortality and more serious morbidity. These rates further increased with intraoperative transfusion of more than 1 unit of packed red blood cells in a dose-dependent manner. After propensity matching to adjust for multiple preoperative risks, transfusion of a single unit of packed red blood cells increased the multivariate risk of mortality, wound problems, pulmonary complications, postoperative renal dysfunction, systemic sepsis, composite morbidity, and postoperative length of stay compared with propensity-matched patients who did not receive intraoperative transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dose-dependent adverse effect of intraoperative blood transfusion. It is likely that a small, possibly discretionary amount of intraoperative transfusion leads to increased mortality, morbidity, and resource use, suggesting that caution should be used with intraoperative transfusions for mildly hypovolemic or anemic patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archsurg.2011.790

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 343

Metadata

Authors
Ferraris, V. A.
Venue
Archives of Surgery
Published
2012-01-01
Volume
147
Issue
1
Pages
49
ISSN
0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119346547
Cited by
343
References
3
FWCI
20.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surgical Outcomes and Transfusion of Minimal Amounts of Blood in the Operating Room. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.2011.790
The paper
Ferraris, V. A. (2012). Surgical Outcomes and Transfusion of Minimal Amounts of Blood in the Operating Room. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2011.790

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.