Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 613

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Health Care–Associated Infection After Red Blood Cell Transfusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Rohde, Jeffrey M., Dimcheff, Derek E., Blumberg, Neil, Saint, Sanjay, Langa, Kenneth M., Kuhn, Latoya, Hickner, Andrew, Rogers, Mary A. M.·2014·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The association between red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies and health care-associated infection is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether RBC transfusion thresholds are associated with the risk of infection and whether risk is independent of leukocyte reduction. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Sytematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number register were searched through January 22, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials with restrictive vs liberal RBC transfusion strategies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials with 8735 patients met eligibility criteria, of which 18 trials (n = 7593 patients) contained sufficient information for meta-analyses. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models were used to report pooled risk ratios. Absolute risks of infection were calculated using the profile likelihood random-effects method. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incidence of health care-associated infection such as pneumonia, mediastinitis, wound infection, and sepsis. RESULTS: The pooled risk of all serious infections was 11.8% (95% CI, 7.0%-16.7%) in the restrictive group and 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-25.4%) in the liberal group. The risk ratio (RR) for the association between transfusion strategies and serious infection was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.95) with little heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; τ2 <.0001). The number needed to treat (NNT) with restrictive strategies to prevent serious infection was 38 (95% CI, 24-122). The risk of infection remained reduced with a restrictive strategy, even with leukocyte reduction (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]). For trials with a restrictive hemoglobin threshold of <7.0 g/dL, the RR was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70-0.97) with NNT of 20 (95% CI, 12-133). With stratification by patient type, the RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91) in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28-0.95) in patients presenting with sepsis. There were no significant differences in the incidence of infection by RBC threshold for patients with cardiac disease, the critically ill, those with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or for infants with low birth weight. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among hospitalized patients, a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy was associated with a reduced risk of health care-associated infection compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Implementing restrictive strategies may have the potential to lower the incidence of health care-associated infection.

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/jama.2014.2726

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 613

Metadata

Authors
Rohde, J. M., Dimcheff, D. E., Blumberg, N., Saint, S., Langa, K. M., Kuhn, L., Hickner, A., & Rogers, M. A. M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2014-04-02
Volume
311
Issue
13
Pages
1317
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2163332984
Cited by
613
References
4
FWCI
57.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Health Care–Associated Infection After Red Blood Cell Transfusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2014.2726
The paper
Rohde, J. M., Dimcheff, D. E., Blumberg, N., Saint, S., Langa, K. M., Kuhn, L., Hickner, A., & Rogers, M. A. M. (2014). Health Care–Associated Infection After Red Blood Cell Transfusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.2726

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.