Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing mortality in restrictive and liberal haemoglobin thresholds for red cell transfusion: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Clicks: 284
ID: 22169
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #242 of 442 articles by views in BMJ open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 442 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
There has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials investigating thresholds for red blood cell transfusion. To systematically collate, appraise and synthesise the results of these systematic reviews and meta-analyses, we will conduct an overview of systematic reviews.This is a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews. We will search five databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed (for prepublication, in process and non-Medline records) and Google Scholar. We will consider systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of haemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion on mortality. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts retrieved in the literature search and select studies meeting the eligibility criteria for full-text review. We will extract data onto a predefined form designed to summarise the key characteristics of each review. We will assess the methodological quality of included reviews and the quality of evidence in included reviews.Formal ethics approval is not required for this overview as we will only analyse published literature. The findings of this study will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted for peer-review publication. The results are likely to be used by clinicians, policy makers and developers of clinical guidelines and will inform suggestions for future systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials.CRD42019120503.
Reference Key
trentino2019systematicbmj Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Trentino, Kevin M;Farmer, Shannon L;Sanfilippo, Frank M;Leahy, Michael F;Isbister, James;Mayberry, Rhonda;Hofmann, Axel;Murray, Kevin;
Journal BMJ open
Year 2019
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029828
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.