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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care
Hébert, P. C., Wells, G., Blajchman, M. A., Marshall, J., Martin, C., Pagliarello, G., Tweeddale, M., Schweitzer, I., & Yetisir, E. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199902113400601 · Cited by 5,187
Murphy, G. J., Reeves, B. C., Rogers, C. A., Rizvi, S. I. A., Culliford, L., & Angelini, G. D. (2007) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.698977 · Cited by 1,371
Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines.
Tricoci, P. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.205 · Cited by 908
Cited by
Iron deficiency anaemia revisited
Cappellini, M. D., Musallam, K. M., & Taher, A. T. (2020) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/joim.13004 · Cited by 508
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferraris, V. A.
- Venue
- Archives of Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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.