Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Althoff, Friederike C., Neb, Holger, Herrmann, Eva, Trentino, Kevin M., Vernich, Lee, Füllenbach, Christoph, Freedman, John, Waters, Jonathan H., Farmer, Shannon, Leahy, Michael F., Zacharowski, Kai, Meybohm, Patrick, Choorapoikayil, Suma·2019·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether a multidisciplinary, multimodal Patient Blood Management (PBM) program for patients undergoing surgery is effective in reducing perioperative complication rate, and thereby is effective in improving clinical outcome. Background: PBM is a medical concept with the focus on a comprehensive anemia management, to minimize iatrogenic (unnecessary) blood loss, and to harness and optimize patient-specific physiological tolerance of anemia. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Eligible studies had to address each of the 3 PBM pillars with at least 1 measure per pillar, for example, preoperative anemia management plus cell salvage plus rational transfusion strategy. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017079217). Results: Seventeen studies comprising 235,779 surgical patients were included in this meta-analysis (100,886 pre-PBM group and 134,893 PBM group). Implementation of PBM significantly reduced transfusion rates by 39% [risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.68, P < 0.00001], 0.43 red blood cell units per patient (mean difference −0.43, 95% CI −0.54 to −0.31, P < 0.00001), hospital length of stay (mean difference −0.45, 95% CI −0.65 to −0.25, P < 0,00001), total number of complications (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74–0.88, P <0.00001), and mortality rate (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80–0.98, P = 0.02). Conclusions: Overall, a comprehensive PBM program addressing all 3 PBM pillars is associated with reduced transfusion need of red blood cell units, lower complication and mortality rate, and thereby improving clinical outcome. Thus, this first meta-analysis investigating a multimodal approach should motivate all executives and health care providers to support further PBM activities.

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 · 10.1097/sla.0000000000003095

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Althoff, F. C., Neb, H., Herrmann, E., Trentino, K. M., Vernich, L., Füllenbach, C., Freedman, J., Waters, J. H., Farmer, S., Leahy, M. F., Zacharowski, K., Meybohm, P., & Choorapoikayil, S.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2019-05
Volume
269
Issue
5
Pages
794-804
ISSN
  • 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1140
OpenAlex
W2901558208
Cited by
316
References
38
FWCI
15.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0000000000003095
The paper
Althoff, F. C., Neb, H., Herrmann, E., Trentino, K. M., Vernich, L., Füllenbach, C., Freedman, J., Waters, J. H., Farmer, S., Leahy, M. F., Zacharowski, K., Meybohm, P., & Choorapoikayil, S. (2019). Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003095

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.