Why have meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the association between non-white-blood-cell-reduced allogeneic blood transfusion and postoperative infection produced discordant results?

N/ACitations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Intention-to-treat analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the association between non-white-blood-cell (WBC)-reduced allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) and postoperative infection were reported as the reason why meta-analyses of RCTs of this association have produced discordant results. We examined three possible reasons for disagreements between meta-analyses: (i) sources of medical heterogeneity and integration of RCTs despite extreme heterogeneity; (ii) reliance on as-treated (vs. intention-to-treat) comparisons; and (iii) inclusion (or not) of the three most recent RCTs. When nine RCTs reported up to 2002 were combined despite extreme heterogeneity, both intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons found an association between non-WBC-reduced ABT and postoperative infection [summary odds ratio (OR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.85, P < 0.05; and summary OR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.06-2.31, P < 0.05, respectively]. When 12 RCTs reported up to 2005 were integrated despite extreme heterogeneity, both intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons found no association of non-WBC-reduced ABT with postoperative infection (summary OR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.56, P > 0.05; and summary OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.98-1.75, P > 0.05, respectively). In both analyses, the separate integration of four RCTs transfusing red blood cells (RBCs) or whole blood filtered after storage showed an association between non-WBC-reduced ABT and postoperative infection, whereas the separate integration of six (or nine) RCTs, reported through 2002 or 2005, and transfusing prestorage-filtered RBCs showed no association, whether intention-to-treat or as-treated comparisons were used. Thus, the published meta-analyses have produced discordant results because they did (or did not) investigate medical sources of heterogeneity and did (or did not) include the most recent RCTs. Intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons produced concordant results. © 2007 The Author(s).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vamvakas, E. C. (2007, October). Why have meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the association between non-white-blood-cell-reduced allogeneic blood transfusion and postoperative infection produced discordant results? Vox Sanguinis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1423-0410.2007.00959.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free