Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,328

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

Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion in High-Risk Patients after Hip Surgery

Open access
Carson, Jeffrey L., Terrin, Michael L., Noveck, Helaine, Sanders, David W., Chaitman, Bernard R., Rhoads, George G., Nemo, George, Dragert, Karen, Beaupre, Lauren, Hildebrand, Kevin, Macaulay, William, Lewis, Courtland, Cook, Donald Richard, Dobbin, Gwendolyn, Zakriya, Khwaja J., Apple, Fred S., Horney, Rebecca A., Magaziner, Jay·2011·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The hemoglobin threshold at which postoperative red-cell transfusion is warranted is controversial. We conducted a randomized trial to determine whether a higher threshold for blood transfusion would improve recovery in patients who had undergone surgery for hip fracture. METHODS: We enrolled 2016 patients who were 50 years of age or older, who had either a history of or risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and whose hemoglobin level was below 10 g per deciliter after hip-fracture surgery. We randomly assigned patients to a liberal transfusion strategy (a hemoglobin threshold of 10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive transfusion strategy (symptoms of anemia or at physician discretion for a hemoglobin level of <8 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was death or an inability to walk across a room without human assistance on 60-day follow-up. RESULTS: A median of 2 units of red cells were transfused in the liberal-strategy group and none in the restrictive-strategy group. The rates of the primary outcome were 35.2% in the liberal-strategy group and 34.7% in the restrictive-strategy group (odds ratio in the liberal-strategy group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.22), for an absolute risk difference of 0.5 percentage points (95% CI, -3.7 to 4.7). The rates of in-hospital acute coronary syndrome or death were 4.3% and 5.2%, respectively (absolute risk difference, -0.9%; 99% CI, -3.3 to 1.6), and rates of death on 60-day follow-up were 7.6% and 6.6%, respectively (absolute risk difference, 1.0%; 99% CI, -1.9 to 4.0). The rates of other complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A liberal transfusion strategy, as compared with a restrictive strategy, did not reduce rates of death or inability to walk independently on 60-day follow-up or reduce in-hospital morbidity in elderly patients at high cardiovascular risk. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; FOCUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00071032.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1012452

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 1,328

Metadata

Authors
Carson, J. L., Terrin, M. L., Noveck, H., Sanders, D. W., Chaitman, B. R., Rhoads, G. G., Nemo, G., Dragert, K., Beaupre, L., Hildebrand, K., Macaulay, W., Lewis, C., Cook, D. R., Dobbin, G., Zakriya, K. J., Apple, F. S., Horney, R. A., & Magaziner, J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2011-12-29
Volume
365
Issue
26
Pages
2453-2462
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2106407512
Cited by
1,328
References
4
FWCI
63.98
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: Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion in High-Risk Patients after Hip Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1012452
The paper
Carson, J. L., Terrin, M. L., Noveck, H., Sanders, D. W., Chaitman, B. R., Rhoads, G. G., Nemo, G., Dragert, K., Beaupre, L., Hildebrand, K., Macaulay, W., Lewis, C., Cook, D. R., Dobbin, G., Zakriya, K. J., Apple, F. S., Horney, R. A., & Magaziner, J. (2011). Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion in High-Risk Patients after Hip Surgery. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1012452

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.