Table 5.

Binary and Ordinal Logistic Regression Results for Transfusion Threshold for uGOS, GOS, and GOS-E Outcomes

	uGOS		GOS		GOS-E
	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Unadjusted logistic regressiona
10 vs. 7 g/dL transfusion threshold	0.51 (0.28–0.93)	0.03	0.66 (0.36–1.22)	0.19	0.68 (0.37–1.24)	0.20
Adjustedb logistic regressiona
10 vs. 7 g/dL transfusion threshold	0.40 (0.19–0.86)	0.02	0.57 (0.27–1.21)	0.15	0.58 (0.27–1.23)	0.16
Unadjusted ordinal logistic regression
10 vs. 7 g/dL transfusion threshold	0.66 (0.39–1.13)	0.13	0.82 (0.48–1.39)	0.46	0.71 (0.42–1.19)	0.19
Adjustedb ordinal logistic regression
10 vs. 7 g/dL transfusion threshold	0.72 (0.41–1.27)	0.26	0.91 (0.52–1.59)	0.73	0.79 (0.45–1.36)	0.39

^auGOS, GOS-E, and GOS were dichotomized into {Good Recovery, Moderately Disabled} vs. {Severely Disabled, Vegetative State, Death}.

^bAdjusted for Injury Severity Score, the IMPACT laboratory model score, and presence of epidural hematoma.

CI, confidence interval; GOS, structured interview Glasgow Outcome Scale; GOS-E, Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale; uGOS, unstructured Glasgow Outcome Scale; OR, odds ratio.