Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines

Open access
Carson, Jeffrey L., Stanworth, Simon J., Guyatt, Gordon, Valentine, Stacey, Dennis, Jane, Bakhtary, Sara, Cohn, Claudia S., Dubon, Allan, Grossman, Brenda J., Gupta, Gaurav K., Hess, Aaron S., Jacobson, Jessica L., Kaplan, Lewis J., Lin, Yulia, Metcalf, Ryan A., Murphy, Colin H., Pavenski, Katerina, Prochaska, Micah T., Raval, Jay S., Salazar, Eric, Saifee, Nabiha H., Tobian, Aaron A. R., So-Osman, Cynthia, Waters, Jonathan, Wood, Erica M., Zantek, Nicole D., Pagano, Monica B.·2023·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Red blood cell transfusion is a common medical intervention with benefits and harms. Objective: To provide recommendations for use of red blood cell transfusion in adults and children. Evidence Review: Standards for trustworthy guidelines were followed, including using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, managing conflicts of interest, and making values and preferences explicit. Evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials was reviewed. Findings: For adults, 45 randomized controlled trials with 20 599 participants compared restrictive hemoglobin-based transfusion thresholds, typically 7 to 8 g/dL, with liberal transfusion thresholds of 9 to 10 g/dL. For pediatric patients, 7 randomized controlled trials with 2730 participants compared a variety of restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds. For most patient populations, results provided moderate quality evidence that restrictive transfusion thresholds did not adversely affect patient-important outcomes. Recommendation 1: for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). In accordance with the restrictive strategy threshold used in most trials, clinicians may choose a threshold of 7.5 g/dL for patients undergoing cardiac surgery and 8 g/dL for those undergoing orthopedic surgery or those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. Recommendation 2: for hospitalized adult patients with hematologic and oncologic disorders, the panel suggests a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (conditional recommendations, low certainty evidence). Recommendation 3: for critically ill children and those at risk of critical illness who are hemodynamically stable and without a hemoglobinopathy, cyanotic cardiac condition, or severe hypoxemia, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). Recommendation 4: for hemodynamically stable children with congenital heart disease, the international panel suggests a transfusion threshold that is based on the cardiac abnormality and stage of surgical repair: 7 g/dL (biventricular repair), 9 g/dL (single-ventricle palliation), or 7 to 9 g/dL (uncorrected congenital heart disease) (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: It is good practice to consider overall clinical context and alternative therapies to transfusion when making transfusion decisions about an individual patient.

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.2023.12914

Cites

54 of 54 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 54 references

Cited by

See all 435

Metadata

Authors
Carson, J. L., Stanworth, S. J., Guyatt, G., Valentine, S., Dennis, J., Bakhtary, S., Cohn, C. S., Dubon, A., Grossman, B. J., Gupta, G. K., Hess, A. S., Jacobson, J. L., Kaplan, L. J., Lin, Y., Metcalf, R. A., Murphy, C. H., Pavenski, K., Prochaska, M. T., Raval, J. S., Salazar, E., Saifee, N. H., Tobian, A. A. R., So-Osman, C., Waters, J., Wood, E. M., Zantek, N. D., & Pagano, M. B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2023-11-21
Volume
330
Issue
19
Pages
1892
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4387563884
Cited by
435
References
54
FWCI
42.76
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: Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2023.12914
The paper
Carson, J. L., Stanworth, S. J., Guyatt, G., Valentine, S., Dennis, J., Bakhtary, S., Cohn, C. S., Dubon, A., Grossman, B. J., Gupta, G. K., Hess, A. S., Jacobson, J. L., Kaplan, L. J., Lin, Y., Metcalf, R. A., Murphy, C. H., Pavenski, K., Prochaska, M. T., Raval, J. S., . . . Pagano, M. B. (2023). Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.12914

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.